It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Caught On Camera (Ghost)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by g210b

Look closely at ALL visible portions of the individual standing behind the girls in the foreground.

It seems they forgot to apply the same "ghostly" filters to the portion of the individual's arm ( between the brunette's tricep and mid-torso ) as they did to the head and shoulder portion.

[edit: to add]

arm behind tricep and mid-torso:

? thoughts ?

[edit on 10/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:25 AM
I think the arm seen through the space between the girl's arm and her torso DOES look blurry. That was one part that impressed me.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:28 AM
I've edited in additional images in the above post.

Look at the flesh tone, Val. The arm is good ole' pinked-up living flesh ... not "ghost-like" as the other visible portions.

[edit on 10/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]


posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:55 AM
my tuppence :

the light source is overhead. the girls have their backs to the light and the figure behind is in the full glare of the light source. that'll be why she' appears brighter. the left hand side of the room appears to be darker possibly due to a conical shaped lampshade,
the person is fuzzy due to being in motion.
playing with the photo in photoshop brings up all sorts of nonsense due to it being a jpg.

wether the figure at the back really was in the room is another thing entirely that playing with a small image in photoshop won't tell us.

note: it did appear to be photoshopped near the dark-haired girls hair which looked too straight a la the eraser tool on photoshop. then i noticed that the hair on the other side of her head was also similarly angular.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:24 PM
Not sure of the authenticity...but as i live 3 miles from Culloden, it looks like Bonnie Prince Charlie??

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:47 PM
Jesus i been offline today and didnt expect this to attract so much attention. And i certainly didnt expect bonus points and stuff so thankyou for your pms and stuff.

Anyway this is a good debate going on here. I know i never saw this picture taken myself but i can strongly deny any use of photoshop or editing with this picture. They barely know how to put the memory card into a printer and print off pictures let alone use editing techniques. Also my friend who is the mother of one of the girls is totally trustworthy and isnt exactly a wizard with the PC at work (one of those one finger typist one word a minute people) If this turns out to be a fake then i myself have been duped by a colleage and friend i trust. I believe this to be either genuine or a very bizzare trick of the light or reflection

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:09 PM

Please don't take my posts as being completely dismissive, nor as an attempt to discredit that which you claim or those who forwarded the image to you.

As mentioned in my U2U, the fact that we have only an image purported to have been taken with a camera phone, then printed, and then scanned, greatly diminishes the ability to ascertain just what it is or may be.

Printers and scanners will introduce their own unique "properties" (pixel combing, image degradation, etc.). If it were possible to have the RAW image, straight from the camera phone, the ability to "appraise" such would be much greater.

It is a rather intriguing "image", which, in the end, may ultimately prove "unsolvable". Nevertheless, I feel it only prudent to remain skeptical until it's demonstrated or "proven" otherwise.

Thank you for this thread, the image, and your desire to seek a resolve.


posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:19 PM
For what it's worth if I weren't told to look for a ghost I would not have seen anything unusual about this picture.

It looks to me that the camera has been set at a high exposure. Anything moving quickly will blur. The girls in the foreground are striking a pose so barely move, where as the person in the background is obviously walk out of the door way from the right heading to the other one.

The 'ghostly' look is coming from the light source which is obviously high behind the 2 girls. We can tell this because the light is bouncing off the top of their heads, but their faces are dull. The person in the back is getting exposed to alot more light which is why they appear 'different', the high exposure would not help this either.

That's what I would've thought with first glance and not looking for a ghost. Looking at the thread some people seem to have spotted potential photoshop edits so who knows, but I'm willing to stake my gold fish on it being the high exposure.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by John Nada]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:23 PM
Just looked at the pic again.

With all the dirt, bug's and dark spots and possible 'duct tapes' ..could it be it was photographed through a not too clean glas plate?

If so the ghost then could be a reflexion on that glas plate of a human or a ghost standing somewhere else.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:24 PM
I think that there is something wrong with the light, it looks like the "ghost" is illuminated with a different light source, but I cannot say exactly what I find wrong with it.

The "ghost" also looks "flat", like if it was a cardboard cut-out, and that would also explain why I think the light is different, in that case that part of the image would have 2 light sources, the one from the original photo and the one on this photo shinning on the supposed cardboard cut-out.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:54 PM
After reading through all this and finding many of the same observations (photo on wall, hair lines, lighting, etc.), there was one other thing that kept buggin me and I couldn't put my finger on it. Something about the 'ghost itself'. Dang - what is it?

Then it occurred to me - I also thought early on that the ghostly image looked a lot like those smoke-glass plates they used to film with early in dugeero0type cameras. Then I looked closer at the 'ghost's face. Check out the expression. Look closeely at the blow-up (thanks guys). Notice anything?

Is it just me, or does this image look a lot like a 'portrait' pose, like you find on paper currency, etc. from a hundred years ago ro so? The nose, the hair, especially the emotionless expression of the hollow eyes. This is a portrait - not an 'entity'. The figure is too 'static', lifeless (poor choice of words), wooden, impartial, nonchelant. Like it's posing for portrait ona dollar bill. I guess I'm not explaining myself very well - but remember those old high scholl history books with Ben Franklin and his buddies sitting around waiting to sign the Declaration of Independence or stainding around getting drawn for a military ceremony. Like that.

Anyway - not sure what a ghost is "supposed to" look like - never seen one myself. But somehow the 'expression' on this image's face just doesn't appear 'ghost-like' to me...

kudos to the poster and thread though - very interesting discussion...

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:14 PM
PHOTO SHOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry peps but this is obvious, don't even know why i bothered to post a reply!!

I'm going to edit this on behalf or the mod and others.

My immediate response to this photo is obvious.

Please look at the difference of the resolution/quality etc of the supposed boogy monster - to me (only my opinion) this has been done on computer - photoshop. I could do better my self with an SLR and old school film.

Might try one day - peace.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by dipsothedrunk]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:28 PM
Well, if exclamation points could sway me, you've had me convinced dipso. Unfortunately, I'm wearing my exclamation-point-resistant undies today. It'll take more than your emphatic declaration.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by dipsothedrunk
Sorry peps but this is obvious, don't even know why i bothered to post a reply!!


Would you care to elaborate on Just What and/or Why you arrived at such an exclamatory and smiley induced , NON-contributive response?

Please, do indulge those who have at least taken the time to EXPLAIN their Whats and Why Fors with regards to this photo/image.

Thank you.

[edit on 10/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by dipsothedrunk
PHOTO SHOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry peps but this is obvious, don't even know why i bothered to post a reply!!


Dipso- can you explain why? Anyone can reply that it is or isnt something... I'd like some explanation as to why you are so sure its PS..

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:03 PM
I can see what your looking at - It seems the head has a lightcaster on it (Photoshop filter) and the arm doesn't - either that or the light source is in two places ie above and behind the girls AND directly behind them to illuminate the whole face like that in a consistant manner. it is this consistant manner which to me seems to point to it being an edited image - BUT - it is edited not in layers but a direct paste in hence the reason why its been neglected in the arm stake.... ( working in layers the whole of the person would be lit and then cut / edited in, but a paste in you would do bits inside your origional....)

Good image, but i'm not going to say its a fake per se, as it could be the lights in the room.... But I could do the same in photoshop in about 30 mins... so i'll say it could be any thing..

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:13 PM
i disagree with the lighting argument. I mean you can clearly see that the light illuminating her is also illuminating the closet door frame and the photo frame on the wall between the girls heads. Also i tend to think that the arm section is as illuminated and fuzzy as the rest of the spook.

It could also be possible that this being if real could be producing their own source of light much like Orbs etc are photographed sometiimes

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:14 PM
it's the contrast or difference in the defination between the girl's shouulder and the 'ghost' - look at the top of her head, then the shoulder with the boogy monster. the boogy monster/shoulder is much more defined. Sorry but this ain't a real one.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by dipsothedrunk
Sorry but this ain't a real one.

Ahem... sorry to burst your OBVIOUSLY well informed expert opinionated bubble

But check my previous posts..Shall I say it one more time for anyone else??


While your argument is greatly improved by the use of smileys and exclamation marks I actually took the slightly less scientific approach of checking the images attributes and prog logs.

As it seems from the Opening poster,s remarks also I summised correctly it had been extracted through an all in one scanner/printer.

You should really spare yourself further embarrasment by maybe a quick apology to the O.P and possibly some educated input to the discussion in question.thanks

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:28 PM
Yes it is but only due to light saturation of the girls shoulder. The girl is obviously under the light source (Or her shoulder is anyway) and because of the severity of the saturation of light you lose any definition on her shoulder edges

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in