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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
Why is the top picture cut off? You don't see a . in the top picture, yet there is one when it is blown up. Do you have the full top picture?



Sorry, my explaination wasn't paricularly clear. They are both from the same negative. When the photo came back from the printers, they had cropped the edge. When the figure was noticed, they took the negative back and blew up that section.

[edit on 29-5-2006 by Woland]




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Oh, ok. Thanks for answering. I'm very interested in this picture and I'll keep looking into it.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   


I don't believe that what we are looking at is an 'entity' captured on camera. The two main reasons I believe this is are:

Red Arrow: points to a green item 'bisecting' what appears to be the entities hair. This appears to be part of the foliage in the background. If the argument is made that perhaps the entity has a ribbon around her hair to hold it together, then the proportions of the . would not be accurate. Which would not make sense as the rest of the 'entity' appears accurate, so why would the . be distorted. Although the argument could be made that this portion of 'hair' is opaque, as are other portions of the 'entity'.

Blue Arrow: These three 'blobs' are very, very close in color. The 'blobs' on the left, which are not part of the 'entities' hair are clearly parts of the background foliage. So I believe the 'blob' that looks like the 'entities' hair is actually just part of the background.

All in all, a very interesting picture, and of course the above are just my opinions, and as such are subject to argument, but I believe it is just a unique combination of ground foliage that happens to look like a little girl.

However, the OP indicated that the local Vicar stated that two small girls drowned in a stream some time ago. I would be curious to hear what the girls were wearing when they passed. Perhaps I may need to review my opinion.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Not a ghost, apparition, or entity.
Just a girl in the wedding party, in the background, with terrible Mpeg compression from the DVD and poor focus in the photograph. Look at the two kids in the foreground, look for fine details, you will see even that they, at close range, are not crisp and clean, but have some blur of all the details.
Now extend that blur another 50 to 100 or more feet, and you'll understand why the girl in the background is even more obscured. Nothing supernatural about it.

Nothing to see here people, move along.

The "ghosthunter" is totaly without any credit, all his arguments for why its an entity can be completly debunked. Beware of charlatans that tell you what you want to hear.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCFusion

I don't believe that what we are looking at is an 'entity' captured on camera.

I believe it is just a unique combination of ground foliage that happens to look like a little girl.


Hmm, to me, it is definitely a girl, and without a doubt. Too often I refuse to see what people want me to see, and I don't think I've done it here, either. I've taken a long time to re-evaluate my opinion of the image, and think thus;

1. Too much of the girl is definable to not be one. I can see her nose, her arm bends in the right place, her feet point the correct direction, the .band is where it should be, the proportions are correct and her dress is shaped as one would expect.

2. I find it incredible hard to believe it is anything but poor picture quality, but I can't truly say it is. I've had many cameras, and have yet to see a similiar effect. Perhaps, someone can find a similiar effect in one of their pictures. I think that would convince me.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by Woland]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Woland]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer

Just a girl in the wedding party, in the background, ...poor focus in the photograph. Look at the two kids in the foreground, look for fine details, you will see even that they, at close range, are not crisp and clean, but have some blur of all the details. Now extend that blur another 50 to 100 or more feet, and you'll understand why the girl in the background is even more obscured. Nothing supernatural about it.


I agree in principle. A couple of points, though.

1. The video was never meant for proof beyond the fact that this girl is not a double exposure. I could post a higher resolution mpeg if people so wished.
2. I'm would like for someone with skills in imaging to perhaps workout how far the girl is a way. I think that their is something screwy about it. As I say above, if anyone has seen a similiar effect from a camera, perhaps they could post it.


The "ghosthunter" is totaly without any credit, all his arguments for why its an entity can be completly debunked. Beware of charlatans that tell you what you want to hear.


I think that circumstantial evidence is easy to come up, but it doesn't make him a charlatan. The points he makes work, but they don't prove anything.

Thanks for responding, but I think it would be foolish to conclude without collaborating your theory with a little proof. Can anyone help him out?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
UFO's are seaguls but thats a ghost? Yaaaa, no....Sorry



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Census
UFO's are seaguls but thats a ghost? Yaaaa, no....Sorry


Damn, I hate pantomine responses, I guess it's my turn. Oh, no I didn't...



I find it incredible hard to believe it is anything but poor picture quality

I really want to hear opposing explainations.

I agree in principle. but I think it would be foolish to conclude without collaborating your theory with a little proof.


I can't find the one where I said I thought it was a ghost. It's a girl, and she's definately in the same temporal space as the kids. That's all I think at the moment.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
While I was looking at the picture at hand I managed to copy it and take it to paint to magnify, while I was pondering on it I started making out what appears to be a female figure holding a little girl. I don't know how to paste the picture that I outlined here on this thread, but it is definately something to take a good hard look at in the close up of the posted magnified photo take it to paint and see for yourself. Out of all the post's that were put on this thread, no one has seen this apparently.
If there is some one out there that can explain to me how to post a pic. I would deeply appreciate it and by the way , there is alot more to this captured photo than meet's the eye.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Did you use a paint program? Then save it as a jpeg file, upload it to something like Photobucket and you'll be able to post it.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Did anyone ever found out if the girl was a ghost or not....Because this picture and video really interests me, it's the best evidence I've seen in a long time.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightWish
Did anyone ever found out if the girl was a ghost or not....Because this picture and video really interests me, it's the best evidence I've seen in a long time.


I did some research, and also enlarged the image in question. As far as i can tell, and I'm no expert at these things, the image has not been tampered with nor double exposed.

Two different media systems caught the same image from different angles.That is what i find fascinating.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This is the original image of the girl in the back ground.



And this is the cropped version.



This version is enhanced



The enhancement gives the girl a more natural appearance, but the image is still somewhat see through in places. I have tried numerous effects and enlargements etc, but I got to be honest here, i am at a loss to explain this.
Maybe someone can offer up some feasible explanation?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Thanks biker eddie. I wish that more people had commented on this thread. I've noticed a number of unusual photographs and videos threads that are (in my opinion) of a poorer quality but seem to grow exponentially.

Perhaps it will gain a resurgence of interest at some point.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Woland]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Hmm I am more attracted to the Caught On Camera pic.. 3 cute girls (includeing the ghost, you can't beat that easily


But well I can give a short comment although without checking in deep of the photo and thread here is what my first impression is:

That 'ghost' girl looks out of human proprtion to me, that's why i doubt a little it's a ghost or at least no human ghost or one that is misshappen.
(ok maybe it's possible, ghost can alter the form)

Check the arm sections and the leg ('s...missing at leasta little bit of the second)
the lenghs are missmatched.
Also if you follow the leg you get in conflict with if she is standing or sitting.

the whole ghost girl here could be a development error of the photo..

I've seen that pic already somewhere...

about the transparency of the others girl clouth I have to let that one out ..read to less to see what you want to tell with that.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I would like to point out there is also a second thing caught in both pics - a mist on the ground in the general area of the girl. At first I thought it was just a "lighter grass area", and there is, in fact, a lighter area of grass at that region, but there is also a mist almost like fog hanging low to the ground. You can verify that it is more than a change in ground cover in the lower pic more readily than the top one. Look at the dark green clump of grass just to the right of the "ghost girl" (would be behind her as she is standing) and you will see that the mist comes across that clump of grass.

How neat! Thank you for sharing.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210b
Check the arm sections and the leg ('s...missing at leasta little bit of the second)
the lenghs are missmatched.
Also if you follow the leg you get in conflict with if she is standing or sitting.

the whole ghost girl here could be a development error of the photo..


Thanks for taking a look. I hope I'm not misunderstanding your comments when I say that the reason I know 'the whole ghost girl' is not a development error is that the girl appears in the video too.

I still maintain that the girl is definately in the same spatial proximity to the other children, but the question is whether the photo' has an error that makes her appear transparent, or if there is something truly difficult to explain.

Here's the video link if you missed it on the first page.

Video of the girl in the photograph

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Woland]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I cant believe no one else even noticed the most important fact.

the girls hair in the fore ground is obviously blowing to the right, you can see strands of it almost vertical in that direction indicating a fairly good breeze was blowing that day.

The "entity" in the backgrounds dress is also blowing the exact same direction.


Its a girl that you didnt realize was there when you took the pic.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RickinVa
The "entity" in the backgrounds dress is also blowing the exact same direction.

Its a girl that you didnt realize was there when you took the pic.


There's no doubting that the girl is there as the video confirms this. So do you think that the see-through nature is merely a trick of the light/camera?

The circumstantial evidence is of little merit, but the reason the photo' was enlarged was because no-one recognised this girl, and the land behind was farm land right by a river, neither suitable for a child of this age. A child at the wedding asked her mum whether or not she had seen 'the ghost'.

Of course, no-one is going to have their mind changed by little tit-bits like that- it doesn't sway me, but I'm not convinced that the dress is blowing in the wind. Then that could just be me.

Can anyone support RickinVa's suggestion? If she's there, why can we see through her? Does anyone have a similar photo' that has the same effect? I hope so.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Woland]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Woland

Here's the video link if you missed it on the first page.
Video of the girl in the photograph

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Woland]


Ah, thanks. Yes missed that one.

So I agree no error in the phot processing.

The wind is the key here I think.
The one who just posted (Rick something) made a good comment.

The wind blows strong and from left to right. Now check the beginning of the video left in the background. There is something white there flat on the ground, and changeing/moveing.

I would guess that's a white transparent plastic 'bag' that got blown to the tree and appears as the girl in the photo and the video later (it kept 'shaken' in the wind).

If this is a wedding, there is probabily more than that one photo taken. In one before that you could maybe figure out on what the plastic is hanging. That 'thing' could build the leg seen.

Just a theorie, but I think a possible one after I have seen that video.

edit: hmm but maybe the leg is also part of the plastic 'bag' and it riches the ground.

edit2: oh and yes not that this goes down. Rick's comment is also very true, a ghost's skirt would probabily not moveing with the wind.


[edit on 25-10-2006 by g210b]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join