It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lurker with pic I would like to share

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikeh3t
Ok. I have got the direct email from the phone it was captured from. I will send it to the guy that asked for it. The phone was an LG 4 G4. I'm going to try and post 2 pics that were taken from the same spot after they hustled back to the location after they say what they did in the photo , to take a few more pics.


Hi, thank you for the email, pics well received. The ghost picture is the original one this time. There are however a few odd things in the EXIF metadata that I’ll explain later. Just to be clear here, I’m not saying that these photos are not authentic or have been manipulated in any way (and I do think that they are authentic), but there are few odd things that I don’t fully understand yet.

The two other pics contains no EXIF data, which happens sometimes in the sharing process. Indeed, these data were likely stripped somewhere during the process of sharing between your sister in law and you. Can you ask her if she’s sure that they came directly form the phone? Are the photo still on the phone? If so, maybe she can directly extract it on a computer or send it to you by email directly from the phone? Anyway, if she remember how she has done it for the ghost pic, she just have to do the same for the two other pics.

Here's a first preliminary short analysis.

The first thing to do in any photo analysis is to check the authenticity of the pictures. Again here, this doesn’t mean that the photographer is a faker, although it can help sometimes to detect some fakes, but rather to check if all the parameters for a given camera (EXIF data presence and position, image size, etc…) are present and at the right place as, most of the time, they can be modified unintentionally using a software, a viewer or a sharing online site, etc.

While waiting for Mike to send me the two other pics in their original version, I’ll focused on the ghost photo at first.
The photo was taken with a LG G4 Verizon (VS986) with the Date/Time Original set as “2016:06:15 23:23:57” :



Firstly, it’s a portrait photo that can be seen as a landscape photo in some viewers or as a thumbnail. It’s a known bug for the LG G4 Verizon firmware that tend sometimes to record the picture as a landscape photo with the EXIF orientation instruction set as “Rotate 90 CW” meaning that the picture should automatically be rotated 90° clockwise by the software that open it, using this EXIF instruction, which is in fact meaningless as it should simply be considered/recorded as a portrait picture and that’s it. Anyway, not interesting here for the study but I thought that it would be necessary to put a word about this oddity here in case that someone else would like to take a look at this photo.

Back to the authenticity check. For me, this photo is what I would call an “Original Authentic”, meaning that it wasn’t modified in any way by any post-process software and that it likely came directly from the camera. It’s not a 100% validity assessment as, like in any authenticity check, there is still a part of unknown, but I do not detect any traces of file modification as for now.



Secondly, and this part is somewhat puzzling as I never meet this before, there is not shutter speed data in the EXIF! Everything else is there in the technical data part of the EXIF (focal length : 4.42; aperture/F number : 1.80; size : 5312 x 2988 …) but not the shutter speed value.

So I loaded lots of original other LG G4 picture to see if it happens, but with no luck. This data is always here, and occurred three times in the EXIF, as “Shutter Speed Value”, as “Shutter Speed” and as “Exposure Time”.

Also, two other data are missing, it is firstly the “Light Value” tag, which indicates the Exposure value. This is not surprising here as this value depends of both the F Number and the Shutter Speed values. Secondly, there’s no ISO tag as well, which is not normal at all as this value indicates the sensitivity of the sensor to light and is always present in all the metadata of all the camera, unless there’s a file modification or a bug in the EXIF writing, which is still possible.



So it is my opinion that it’s possibly related to a bug again, either in the EXIF data writing during the process of the shot or in the firmware.

To check this, Mike, I would need another original picture taken with the same LG G4, no matter what the subject is, so I can check is these missing data are still missing in this other photo. Would you ask your sister in law to do this please?

Now, about the two “ghosts” in this photo, what I can say is that the lightning is coherent, the foreground subject being lightened on the left side of its head by the background right spotlight, as well as the left arm of the other subject. Also, we can see this same lighting on the two other photos.







So it’s like if the two ghosts in the pictures are really there, and part of the scene.

Another thing which is puzzling is that the two ghosts are not clearly defined. It’s like if they were taken with the camera out of focus. This should be impossible as in the two other photos, the two subjects are neat, and clearly on focus with the camera likely set at the infinite and with the depth of field very large, like most of these android camera. This means that all the subjects from a short distance to the camera up to the infinite should be on focus, which is obviously not the case for the two “ghosts”.

@Mike: was an on-site investigation done by someone specialized in the paranormal field? If so, what was the result of this investigation?

While waiting for the other pics from Mike, all I can say as for now is that either, with all due respect, someone is playing an elaborate trick or that something unusual and unexplained happened here.

To be continued…

ETA: could it be a double exposure shot? I never encountered this kind of double exposure in digital photo, but who knows, possibly another bug! Or an app

The ghost on the left likely moved towards the camera during the exposure, it can be seen on its left shoulder:


edit on 18-7-2016 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Love they Analyst elevenaugust, i take it you do this often? fancy pushing me into the direction of some of your more interesting pieces youve contributed too?

Much appreciated!



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Ok, OP said that his family members went on a ghost tour. Couldn't this simply be some actors? I said before that all we have is a second hand account where someone said there were no people.
That doesn't mean it's true. It may just be a story accompanying the picture to make it more scary.

Whatever they are, with a wristwatch an a T-shirt with a breast pocket, they are not supernatural beings.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
The other 2 pics were not from the same phone. They were when they went back , and they didn't use the same phone this time. I will eleven a pic or 2 from the other phone this evening.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikeh3t
The other 2 pics were not from the same phone. They were when they went back , and they didn't use the same phone this time. I will eleven a pic or 2 from the other phone this evening.


When I said wristwatch and T-shirt with pockets, I did mean the original picture with the zombies in it, not the others.

Its an eerie photo but before I fall head over heels for 'ghosts', I have to remember that they were on a ghostwalk and it isn't unknown that these walks sometimes use actors to 'liven' it up a bit. Even if your family member swears they weren't there.
I believe you but I don't know your family and I can't just take their word for it.

Come on, wristwatch and t-shirt, with zombie make up...lol



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

Of course they could be actors, but I don't think that an apparition with a watch on, or modern clothing should be a problem. Alleged ghosts are often seen wearing the clothing or indeed armour or whatever of their period and are often seen carrying items, swords, lamps etc, so I wouldn't think it impossible for a more recently deceased individual to be wearing contemporary clothing/accessories

Interesting pic though, looking forward to further information.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikeh3t
The other 2 pics were not from the same phone. They were when they went back , and they didn't use the same phone this time. I will eleven a pic or 2 from the other phone this evening.

I guess you mean one or two pics from the LG G4? If so, great and thank you, and if you can ask BTW your sister in law for the original pics (taken off directly from the phone would be perfect) of the two others it would be nice.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Respect, eleven, for your analysis! I appreciate it very much.

On the "ghost" photos, there seems to be a lens flare in the foreground or something that isn't present on the other pics, even though the lighting seems the same?? It's on the leg of the moving figure in the back, and the chest area of the foreground figure.

That is lens flare, isn't it?

(If I ever photograph serious weirdness I will bring it to you - and with this thread I will have an idea of what you'll need to examine it!!)

- AB



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

The shadows of the fence posts are also blurry in the "ghost" pic. Weird.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Judging from the position of the flags (blown by wind)...as well as the light source casting highlights...I'd say the two 'ghosts' are probably your relatives moving through the shot.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I want this soooo badly to be an awesome ghost picture but it really just looks like 2 people, maybe she took the picture and did not realize it, hence the blur.

Then turned around again and took another one that she did realized she took.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
I want this soooo badly to be an awesome ghost picture but it really just looks like 2 people, maybe she took the picture and did not realize it, hence the blur.

Then turned around again and took another one that she did realized she took.


Of course it's just two real-world earthly flesh and blood human beings.If the photographer was using the rear screen as a viewfinder (or even if she was using the optical viewfinder if the camera's got one) it would have been too dark to see them and she just didn't see them because the scene was so poorly lit at it's extremities.

I hate to always be so cynical with stuff like this as I'd really like to have real proof of the after life/parallel unviverses etc,but it seems that most people are wanting it to be a ghost because that word appears in the title.Instead we should be more objective and apply Occam's razor which says the simplest explanation is that they were people and the photographer just didn't see them because it was dark.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Excellent pic very intriguing to say the least!

I've run other so called ghost pics through my photoshop program and I was in no doubt they were real at the time, anyway this thing in this image exhibits all the traits of previous genuine ghost anomalies when played around with, very tricky to obtain detail when inverted which is most unusual..


What I want to point out is the reptilian slit eye-now there's something to chew on!








More obvious here 😲





posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMNicks
a reply to: elevenaugust

Love they Analyst elevenaugust, i take it you do this often? fancy pushing me into the direction of some of your more interesting pieces youve contributed too?

Much appreciated!

Hi and thank you!

Yes, this is my daily work. I work with the French agency, "GEIPAN", which is a small part of the CNES dedicated to the study of UFOs. I'm specialized in the UFO photo/video analysis and also work with Francois Louange for the development of a dedicated software since 2011.

I don't exactly recall what I've done here on ATS, but I guess that you'll find some things using the research tool



originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: elevenaugust

Respect, eleven, for your analysis! I appreciate it very much.

On the "ghost" photos, there seems to be a lens flare in the foreground or something that isn't present on the other pics, even though the lighting seems the same?? It's on the leg of the moving figure in the back, and the chest area of the foreground figure.

That is lens flare, isn't it?

(If I ever photograph serious weirdness I will bring it to you - and with this thread I will have an idea of what you'll need to examine it!!)

- AB

Thank you very much!


What looks like a lens flare isn't one in fact. It might be if located on the opposite side of the light source, through a line that passes across this light source, the optical center of the image and the lens flare, like this :



I'm not sure what these lights are, but the more I look at the photo, the more it reminds me of these ghost apps that can be fine everywhere on every cellphone, with sometimes an adjustable transparency. It does not explain anyway the good lighting/reflection of the spotlight on the ghosts.

BTW, you can clearly see (someone, I don't recall who - sorry! - talk early about this) after an image enhancement, that some parts of the background are visible through the ghosts:




originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: elevenaugust
The shadows of the fence posts are also blurry in the "ghost" pic. Weird.

Yes, and in fact it's all the foreground part that is more blurry than it should be. If you look closely, the whole photo is a little more blurry than the other two, but it's more visible in the foreground, with the two ghosts and the ground.

Maybe this is caused by the camera, which is, according to Mike, not the same as that of the ghost picture. So let's wait to see if he succeed in obtaining the original pics and one or two sample pics as well.


edit on 18-7-2016 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Could you upload the unaltered image you recieved to FotoForensics, and post a link to the result please?

BTW, this location appears to be the Hamilton Turner Inn, Savannah Georgia



edit on 18-7-2016 by oletimer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: oletimer
a reply to: elevenaugust

Could you upload the unaltered image you recieved to FotoForensics, and post a link to the result please?

Hello,

Of course! Here you go.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Thank you for posting that link.

To respond in kind, here is a link to the same analysis site, of the same Inn, at night, from almost the same angle, as found on Google images.
edit on 18-7-2016 by oletimer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Eleven, I just sent you the original pic from the phone it was taken from, also a pic from the same night, I think, and also a shot from about 10 minutes ago, from that same phone.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
This is a very fascinating topic, and very cool photo. The ghost on the right reminds me of David Bowie for some reason.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikeh3t
Eleven, I just sent you the original pic from the phone it was taken from, also a pic from the same night, I think, and also a shot from about 10 minutes ago, from that same phone.

Pictures well received, thank you!

On all of these three pictures, the technical parameters ISO and Shutter speed are also missing. So, like I previously said, it's likely just a bug in the LG firmware that do not record all the parameters during the shots. It can happens...

Also, I noticed that the name of the file corresponds to that of the date/hour of the shot. For the ghost photo, the name is "0615162323", meaning that the photo was taken at 23:23, on June, 15th 2016. It's in the format "Month-Day-Year-Hour-Minutes".

Back to the two other photos taken that night where your sisters in law can be seen, the file format is the same as that of the ghost picture. We have "0616160052" and "0616160120". Meaning that the photos were taken respectively at 00:52, on June 16th 2016 and at 01:20 the same day.

So, unless there are two LG G4 Verizon phones, my best guess would be that it was the same phone that was used for the three shots. It's quite possible that you or your sister in law don't remember that point, don't you think so?

So these two shots were respectively taken 1 hour and 29 minutes and 1 hour and 57 minutes after the ghost photo.

Concerning the photo, it is very likely authentic and really shows something weird that shouldn't be there. The really odd thing is that, at that short distance and with the lights behind the two ghosts (acting like a backlighting), it's hard to believe that you sister in law couldn't see them. Also, it's like if the two characters were at the same time present and absent. I mean that they are lightened by the spotlights just like someone "real", but nobody saw them...

About the ghosts themselves, do their looks seems familiar to you or your sisters in law? Also, did you show the pic to the owner of the inn? If so, what was their reaction?

And what's your take on this? What are the thoughts of your sisters in law about this picture? Do they have any paranormal experience?

One more thing, could it be possible to see the previous and the next photo?

As for now, I'm quite puzzled by this photo which is impressing.

Thank you!



new topics




 
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join