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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Well there should be a way to track down who's wedding this was, since there is a banner being flown overhead with the names of the Bride and Groom on it. That at least should narrow down the search some.

If I'm not mistaken, the voices had a british Accent, which narrows the search even further. Follow that up with the fact that this appears to have been on a summer's day, and you have yourself a reasonably small set to search, since very few people with those names will have been married during that time of year, in that area.

Just a suggested starting place to find out from the source if this is true or not.

TheBorg




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
It looks like a smudge on the lens IMO. Not saying it's definitively not a ghost but I would be suspicious of such claims. What do you all think?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JenovaMM
It looks like a smudge on the lens IMO. Not saying it's definitively not a ghost but I would be suspicious of such claims. What do you all think?


On BOTH lenses? Remember, this image was captured by more than just one camera. How could two cameras have the exact same "smudge" on the lense?

TheBorg



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
All we have is Woland's word that it was two cameras. Look at the pictures, they look as if the same lens was used on the cameras.

EDIT: Also, he says that there was a DVD camera and a photo camera but we have no images of the DVD.

EDIT EDIT: ALSO, those "two" photographs are only one photograph and I will try to prove it without using a single photo editing program. If you look closely in the zoom-up photo you can see where the smudge/ghost/thing intersects with a tree. Look at the far shot and you can see that same tree intersects the same place on the ghost/smudge/thing.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JenovaMM
All we have is Woland's word that it was two cameras. Look at the pictures, they look as if the same lens was used on the cameras.


I don't think I ever said it was two cameras. There is a video of the wedding too. I have posted it twice above.


EDIT: Also, he says that there was a DVD camera and a photo camera but we have no images of the DVD.


Here's the link again for you. Video of the wedding


EDIT EDIT: ALSO, those "two" photographs are only one photograph and I will try to prove it without using a single photo editing program. If you look closely in the zoom-up photo you can see where the smudge/ghost/thing intersects with a tree. Look at the far shot and you can see that same tree intersects the same place on the ghost/smudge/thing.


You are quite right. I think that you must have misread my initial post. The second photo' is an enlargement of the first. Sorry if the post wasn't clear; perhaps you can point out where the confusion arose from and I can edit it.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
This is an interesting image but I'm confused/concerned now by a few things.

1. In the original post you clearly say the "entity" was captured on two different media at the same time. So this is two cameras, yes?

2. I'm getting a bit old and deaf but I don't hear anyone say "did you see the ghost".

3. I have seen this picture before somewhere, (on TV?). Has it been posted anywhere else?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
1. In the original post you clearly say the "entity" was captured on two different media at the same time. So this is two cameras, yes?


One still camera; the source of the photograph(s) in the initial post.
One video camera; the link that is posted above.

I hope that clears that up.



2. I'm getting a bit old and deaf but I don't hear anyone say "did you see the ghost".


This is just a what was reported by my friend who gave the photograph and DVD. The child that said it is not on the DVD and it was said after the wedding. It is just a detail that I thought would be interesting rather than just disregarded.



3. I have seen this picture before somewhere, (on TV?). Has it been posted anywhere else?


Unless my friend has posted it elsewhere, No. I haven't posted it elsewhere, although the wedding was a number of years ago.

Does anyone else remember seeing it elsewhere?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification Woland.

The slightly odd thing is that I distinctly recall not only the picture but also the phrase "did you see the Ghost?".

Dear me, the voices in my head will be back next...



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Woland

Unless my friend has posted it elsewhere, No. I haven't posted it elsewhere, although the wedding was a number of years ago.

Does anyone else remember seeing it elsewhere?


Yes, me! I am almost sure.

I believe it was on a web page possible along with other ghost pics.
There were comments made. The non human proprtion I pointed out and if she is standing or sitting was mentioned.

(And after I said it, the wind and plastic bag explanation somehow I believe I have read or heard in connection with that also once before.
Strange, I can remember very well to have seen the pic but not the video!?)



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
ok now the thing in the video is not the same thing in the photo it can't be, the angle of the video is not the same angle of the photo.

now when I look at the video and start it from the children standing for the photo they ar looking to their right at the video camera, and the photo of the children is almost straight on the thing in hte photo is aproximatly 50" away judging by the distance between the shadows on the ground and how they measure as they get farther away puting the figure at aproximatly the 2 o clock position from the children, now on the video as the camera moves taking the origional position of the children in to account the thing in the video would have been at the 3 o clock position and not only that it is much father away at more than 100' away judging by the shadows on the ground in the video, putting the figure shown in the video well out of the photograph about 40' to the right of it and also it don't look like a little girl more like a plastic bag or a bit white tarp.

now the photo it'self looks off the thing is too small in the photo to be a girl atleast of the age she appears to be annother thing her arms are too long when compaired to her legs also the feet are too visable the grass is lon and not cut her feet would be covered up to her ankles at the verry least.

I would have to say that either it is a photo development problem or this is a fake and I'm leaning toward fake.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
My question is..

What is your impression of the woman in blue at :26-:27? What is she looking at? She seems to be looking PAST the bridesmaid in the red dress right into the direction of whatever it is we are seeing.

Interesting footage.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
To me it looks like it's blowing in the wind which would imply it's a physical object. Look at the way it's moving compared to the people's hair blowing in the air.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JenovaMM
It looks like a smudge on the lens IMO. Not saying it's definitively not a ghost but I would be suspicious of such claims. What do you all think?

Do you even know how a "smudge" works? It stays stationary in camera movement and it would be in all the scenes. In other words when you pan the "smudge" would move with the camera and not stay stationary with the scenery...


Earlier in the thread GhostHunter6666 said that "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"... How on earth can any one tell what style of dress it is much less from what era!? It's a simple white dress. It could be anything from the 1600's to 2006...!?

Anyway. It's a pretty interesting and good picture. Whether it's a girl, I don't know. It is a mysterious picture without a doubt!



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salanthus
ok now the thing in the video is not the same thing in the photo it can't be, the angle of the video is not the same angle of the photo.

I would have to say that either it is a photo development problem or this is a fake and I'm leaning toward fake.


So you think that it is merely a coincidence that there is a white 'thing' on the video and that a development problem occurred? Else, someone has tried to fake a photograph to match the video?

I guess the thing about coincidences is that they happen no matter the odds, much like the face on Mars. Personally, I don't see the coincidence angle inaccuracies. What we need is some geometric mapping along the lines of the Pentagon plane work (and a government commissioned report).

I know it's not a fake. This means diddly-squat to anyone else, of course. I don't think anything I could say could convince a skeptic. I've seen the original photographs and have the DVD, and they have not been tampered with.

I really want someone to look a lot more closely at the actual image to see if they can shed any light on:

a) Is there a problem with the exposure?
b) Has any jiggery-pokery taken place?
c) Are the angles right for a match between video and still image?

I hadn't noticed the woman in blue before. I'll check the DVD to see if she is seen again.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by Woland]

[edit on 27-10-2006 by Woland]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Firstly, I don't think that this is a plastic bag. I do realise that they can look strangely like other stuff. I saw a pic a while back on some news site that someone had sent in, that was supposed to be of an anomalous big cat - a bit of closer scrutiny and it was clearly a black plastic bin liner caught on a barbed wire fence. This one does look to me like a figure - although there are problems with it - if you look at what seems to be the limbs of the figure, they look oddly as if they belong to a much smaller child. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that they could see a possible second figure - certainly there are pink areas on the chest and back of the figure that look somewhat as though someone standing to the rear of the figure has their arms around it.

Woland - I was wondering if you knew the location where this took place? It might be interesting to see if there have been any other sightings, or whether anything more can be learnt about the reputed drowning of the two girls there.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Listen to the audio in that video. All of them speak with an English accent, so I'm left to assume that it's somewhere over in Britain. Just a possibility, of course.

TheBorg



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
Listen to the audio in that video. All of them speak with an English accent, so I'm left to assume that it's somewhere over in Britain. Just a possibility, of course.

TheBorg


Aye, but that doesn't really help much Borg - Britain may look like a tiny wee place on the map but there are some 65 million people living here. That's a lot of towns and villages.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
In the video the "girl in white" is actually moving to the right. There is a dark stump or fence post that as she moves occludes part of her dress. Agreed?

Edit in - and the lady in the light blue suit at the end of the video does appear to be looking that way. Some one else stated one of the little kids asked if some one got a picture of the ghost, so I'm assuming this little girl was visible to the people there. Was the little kid's statement caught on video?

[edit on 10-29-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by skjalddis
Aye, but that doesn't really help much Borg - Britain may look like a tiny wee place on the map but there are some 65 million people living here. That's a lot of towns and villages.



Agreed, but it narrows the margin for error down by about 100,000 fold, now don'tcha think?



TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join