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.

 

Is she see-through or not?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I read ATS in the way others gossip about friends and acquaintances, or as far too many people read Dan Brown novels. I don't truly believe in aliens, global conspiracies or magic. I do believe that the pubic is in the dark about a great many things; I not sure what though. When it comes to ghosts, I've heard many a tale from my friends about experiences, or tales that they have been told. One lad, when young, had quite a beano at his house thanks to an experience as a wee baby. I don't believe reason has much part to play in my beliefs when it comes to ATS, but proof, does. Too often a hazy seagull is an alien spaceship because people (well, a handful) want to see one.

So what is this post about. My first post. Well, I've read ATS for about a year now, but have ever bothered to register because there are a lot of smart members and mods. who cut the chaff from the wheat and echo my opinion leaving mine redundant. I learn from ATS, but I think little could ATS learn from me.

I'll keep this brief; no verbage. A friend of my partner came to visit, and during the day asked if we wanted to see a ghost. Not your standard 'What, ho. How's tricks chum'. He produced a DVD and a pair of 'photographs.

The background: A wedding in the nineties. A girl on the DVD asking 'did you see the ghost mummy?'. A 3-hour wedding video. Made for the couple, probably only watched by the couple; if that is said ghost had not put in an appearance. It is also in a 'photograph taken at the same time.

I have been asked to blank out the faces because my friend doesn't really know the couple and can't ask their permission. First apology. Second apology, I don't have a copy of the DVD at present, it wouldn't copy, and yes I'm aware of how this sounds. I'm working on it.

The fact this image was captured by two different mediums at the same moment, to my mind, means it has to have been there. My only questions is; is it a really child? I've scanned through the DVD and can't see the child anywhere. I'm told that she is stood by a river, where the children weren't allowed to play. A rather dated dress (no shoes, either), and 'mummy, did you see the ghost?'.



Both of these images have been resized. This first image had been very kindly cropped by whoever developed the picture. Back they went with the negative to take a closer look.



Is she see-through or not?

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Woland]




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
this picture is amazing.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
She doesn't look see through to me. Doesn't mean it's not a ghost though. I'm not sure what to think. Were there other children at the wedding maybe?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I have looked at the picture,and must say it is quite interesting,first off though is the ghost of a girl?.In regards to the shape and size of the first it looks like the the same picture as in the bottom one,only smaller,perhaps the bottom is blown up.


The ghost in the bottom pic looks like it is wearing a bridal dress and the whole picture looks kinda faded or distorted so the see through spots could probably be parts of the dress where the material is thinner where as the darker parts look to be the persons face and arms.

Another point is that the distance between the two children and the ghost seems off.

But on the other hand when looking at the pic that is blown up it seems to be part of the other pic,yet there seems to be a bit of colour ditortion on the left side.How come the tiop of the first pic has been cut off?Do you have one showing the whole ghost? in regards to the children?

I like it but it sits kind of strange with me.Thanks for the pics.
Oh and i couldnt tell you since it looks way to small to me to be clear as to what it is.
Scarecrow.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Interesting picture, and I believe in ghosts, but I couldn't call that a picture of a ghost.

The video might be more persuave since I've double exposed film numerous times and achieved ghost-like images in pictures.

What I will tell you that stands out to me, is the fact the girl "ghost" is wearing a pretty and more formal looking sleevless dress...just as the flower girl...apropos for a summer wedding as a guest or in the wedding-eems to fit right in to me.

Had it been a bunch of modern people causally dressed in jeans, swim suits etc and fishing and swimming and there she was off in the distance...well, then that might stand out...but she fits right in and I don't think she is see- through...and appears to be wearing ankle socks.

Love to see a copy of the vid though.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Hello People and Op (Person who posted this picture)
I am new to this site and i just wanted to comment on this picture,if it's ok?

Well first off,I am a 'GhostHunter' and have been for many years.

This picture is actually a very good picture that you have here,and here are the reasons why..

l-Look at the style of the dress in the top photo-looks modern

2-The style of the dress that the girl is wearing in the background is 'dated' and what i am trying to say is that it looks to be from between 1920-1940 style

3-Take a close look at the bottom picture and you can clearly see that the grass (darker pattern clump) clearly is showing through the dress

4-The girl in the bottom picture has no shoes on,i don't think that a parent at a function like this would allow a little girl in a 'clean white dress' go running around barefoot in the grass because the parent might be just a bit worried about grass stains getting on the childs feet and legs and possibly on the bottom of the dress

5-The child in the bottom picture 'has no shadow'

6-If you look carfully? You can see that at the bottom part of her leg (shin) you can see that the dark pattern of grass that is horizontal shows through her legs

7-Even at a distance? Todays camera's would be able to pickup her facial structure alot better and in the bottom pic? She seems to only have a flat pattern to her face and it's blended

8-The girl in the bottom picture dress seems to be flowing,yet the trees branches or leaves don't, so this tells me that you have captured a picture of a 'manifistation'..This when a 'ghost/spirit' cross's between our reality and theirs...

This is a Great Picture and from what i see (i use some software that i use when i examine any pictures/video from any investigations that i do to prove to myself if what i have captured is real or a false positive) I always try to prove all my pictures or video's or even 'evp's ' that i take 'wrong' until i can't and then those that i cannot prove are not ghosts/spirts? I save in my file (I also show my stuff to other Paranormal Investigators just to make sure that what i think is something Paranormal? Is

All in all

You got yourself one great picture!

Thank You for Sharing This Picture

GhostHunter



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I have final found a program that will rip just a section of the, rather corrupted, DVD. It's 15MB so it may take a moment to load.

While, I think it to be rather startling, I really want to hear opposing explainations. I have given up trying to black out their faces. Oh, well.

Two further points;

1. I have scrolled through the entire DVD and have been unable to find the girl in any other shot.
2. The gentleman that passed this on to me, has told me that the local vicar looked through the burial records, but found nothing interesting, but did know of a story about two girls who drowned in the river a fair number of years ago.

I don't know. Enjoy.

Video



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
She doesnt look part of the party if you know what i mean.

Shame there isnt mroe footage.
Could be, maybe not.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
There is defiantly a white object in the distance behind the two children. I have tried to freeze the frame and enlarge it, but it is just blurred ,and you can make nothing of it.

Going by the photograph, it is the same 'entity'. I find this fascinating that two separate mediums have captured the same image.

Excellent find



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I have just enlarged both images.

The one with the two children, showing the 'entity'in the back ground has something missing. In the image of the 'entity' on her own, there is a line going through her left hip. It starts above her then passes through her to the ground.

This is not shown on the image with the two children.
Any thoughts?



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
The one with the two children, showing the 'entity'in the back ground has something missing. In the image of the 'entity' on her own, there is a line going through her left hip. It starts above her then passes through her to the ground.

Any thoughts?



I presume one of two things, either by the time they took the negative back, it had been scratched; or, my scanner has a scratch. I don't think that it's anything important.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Weird, to me it looks like there are 2 faces blurred into her. On on the bottom dress, and one on her 'shoulder' to the left.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Woland
I presume one of two things, either by the time they took the negative back, it had been scratched; or, my scanner has a scratch. I don't think that it's anything important.


I don't think its a scratch on your scanner or negative.
If you look closely, the line changes color as it passes through the 'entity'. It goes from white to black, to white again.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
IMO.....

Although only visible for second or so, in the video, it appears that the "background girl" is susceptible to the same weather conditions as those in the main wedding party.

I'm unsure as to how people have drawn certain conclusions here, I think people are merely trying to justify there explainations with assumptions.

Like the fact that she is not wearing shoes, whos to know that shes not a difficult child who was told not wear her shoes if she was going to play in the field.

And how can some identify that she is wearing a 1920s/40s dress, with the resolution of the image it is too hard to tell, I've seen kids dressed up in all sorts of ridiculous outfits at modern day weddings.

As for the photo, I put that down to colour bleed, which can vary depending on the quality of lens, film and camera.

Sorry if I'm raining on your parade, but thats how I see it.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
.Sorry if I'm raining on your parade, but thats how I see it.


I have no problem with what you say. I was pointing out the facts and distortions as i See them.

That is what this is all about. trying to prove if it is real or not.

I have pointed out some things, which in my opinion are worth discussing.
Its one hell of an image that needs clarification.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Not 100% sure if it's real or not, but thats one of the best "ghost" pictures I've seen in a while.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I would be interested to see if the black ''posts'' either side of it actually were fenceposts. as to me it looks like a white kitchen binliner blowing off a barbed wire fence.


anyone tell me how to save a utube video so i can enhance it with my software?thnks



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
I would be interested to see if the black ''posts'' either side of it actually were fenceposts. as to me it looks like a white kitchen binliner blowing off a barbed wire fence.


anyone tell me how to save a utube video so i can enhance it with my software?thnks


javimoya.com...

[edit on 29-5-2006 by enjoies05]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
to me it looks like a white kitchen binliner blowing off a barbed wire fence.


Certainly, I was hoping people would give some rather prosaic explainations. Yet, to me, a plastic bag seems as unlikely as the explaination as that it is a ghost. In the second picture, I would say one can clearly see that it is an human.

If your explaination is that it is a plastic bag in the video, and that someone doctored the photographs after. I guess that's fine. I would hope that someone like rand would be able to take a look at the photos to see if they can discover any anomolies

Thanks for taking a look.

[edit on 29-5-2006 by Woland]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Why is the top picture cut off? You don't see a head in the top picture, yet there is one when it is blown up. Do you have the full top picture?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join