Originally posted by Knight783
Your moronic, based on nothing, insulting accusations are offensive.
Careful there fella, use of abusive language is clearly contrary to the T&C of this board. Let me tell you from experience, I was slapped with a
warning for merely infering some members of this board were "morons". You explicitly called me "moronic", cross your fingers a mod doesnt see
There are quite a few reasons I came to conclude this image is a hoax. Since you've groundlessly accused me of being a moron I think I might have to
share my reasoning.
First of all I have had quite a bit of experience studying the nature of hoaxes. There are a wide variety of motivations and tactics used in staging a
hoax. Your image is a nice example of how hoaxes are generally carried out.
To start with you set the stage for us to be guided into a predetermined outcome.
1. You claimed to be a skeptic, never hurts when you're trying to get people to believe the inexplicable.
2. You infered that you are not technologically capable of altering photographs which makes accusations of you altering the photo easy to fob off. You
did it by requesting that some one else carry out the extremely basic blurring/blocking out of the family members faces. A grade schooler with MS
Paint could carry out that task, but I digress.
3. You outlined that you are reluctant to share this photo due to the sentimental nature of it. This generates sympathy and makes it easier to shoot
down real skeptics as being insensitive.
4. You rather disingenuously asked if someone could "enhance" or give an expert opinion on the photo. This implied you were not convinced either way
but wanted a technical explanation of the photo. What did you expect the responses to be? Swamp gas? A trick of light? There is a fully formed and
distinguished human face in the mirror, there was only two conclusions to be arrived at. A ghost or a hoax.
5. You repeatedly claim to not be a believer of ghosts yet are at a loss to explain what was captured by your camera. How is that possible? What other
rational explanation could there possibly be? You were physically there, you should know
6. You continually refer to a back story of the photo as if it has any meaningful relavance to the anaylsis of the photo. No offence intended but any
extraneous information is purely that, extraneous.
7. When asked about the hand gestures apparent in the image you clearly responded that:
Im not offended but it just looks like that, she isnt making any sign as she isnt religious in any way. Really, I wouldnt read anything into
As for the satanic references, as well as being rather offended at the suggestions, there is also far far too much being looked into. There
really is no hand symbol, its something that would never be done, and something which Im almost certain my nan wouldnt know the meaning of. There is
no religion or spirituality in my family. The last supper references are redundant aswell, its simply a painting. The older generation regardless of
religion etc posses a lot of these, the painting is Da Vinci's most famous.
A rather emphatic reply to the question of the hand gesture yet when asked why it took you 4 pages to offer the arthritis answer you explain the delay
in responding due to being over seas. You werent over seas before you gave two explainations of it being nothing of importance.
8. You claim to not be close with your family members and to have little contact with them. Yet you refer to this photo sending "shockwaves" through
your family. You've obviously shared these photos with your family, not that distant then. Also you managed to clarify that it was a "paint by
numbers" Da Vinci painting. Did you travel 300 miles to ask your nanna about the painting or did you forget to mention it when asked earlier? Out of
interest do they have phones in Oxford?
9. You manage to keep a veneer of calm at the accusations of a hoax as you yourself are "skeptical". Yet when any meaningful rationalizations for
concluding this is a hoax are brought up you feign sensitivity and lash out verbally.
Thats just what I personally noticed whilst following this thread. Now what would be your rationale for staging a hoax? Well you're not asking for
money (yet) so I assume that is not a motivation. Some people get kicks out of duping people, especially in a forum of such a scale as ATS. What a
coup it would be to fool a board as famously skeptical as ATS. There are plenty of examples of people trying to stage hoaxes on ATS and they are not
always out for financial gain. So there is precedent.
As I mentioned in my previous post, "On a sum of all the evidence I'm almost certain this is a hoax". That sum is how I base my personal
observations on everything and anything.
For starters you were asking us to believe this is a ghost, you didnt explicitly say that but, as explained above, there could be no
technical/rational explanation for this photo - it had to be a ghost or a hoax. That is a big ask, if you were asking us to believe your real name was
Cecil that would require much less proof than asking rational minded people to believe in ghosts.
That brings me to the image itself. To be honest, I could whip up a similar image in photoshop in a matter of minutes. I can see a simple cut and
paste with a layer mask applied. From the position of the 'ghost' relative to the reflections in the mirror I can position the 'ghost' in the room
to within a couple of inches. The 'ghost' appears inbetween the man on the rights head and the man on the lefts arm that is placed around the other
people. That clearly rules out
positioning of a person/ghost behind the camera.
So theres the readers options: believe its a ghost due to the abscence of any rational explaination or think it a hoax. Bearing in mind that if you
claim its a hoax youre labelled "insensitive" and "moronic". As I said at the start of this post, we were being guided to a predetermined
If you really didnt think it was a ghost what in God's name could it of been? You were there, you would know if there was another person in the room
hence no rational answer could exist in your mind. So why the doubt? If I took that photo and knew for sure there was no one else in the room at that
time I would be 100%, categorically certain in my belief of ghosts. Yet you ostensibly were in doubt where there is no room for it.
Based on the big ask of believing in ghosts grouped with the subtle psychological manipulation apparent in this thread I can safely claim that it is
my personal opinion
that this is nothing more than a hoax.
If you'd stick with your cover story, my skepticism should not bother you in the slightest but it obviously has. Sorry buddy, better luck next time
If I were to be convinced of ghosts I would either a) need to witness it first hand or b) view video evidence that cannot be explained by
rational explanation. But with the caveat that the owner of the footage did not seek financial reward and that they did not try to grandstand from
p.s. Sorry for the long post but I dont like being refered to as a moron when in actual fact I have an IQ over 145
[edit on 17/3/06 by subz]