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.

 

Caught On Camera (Ghost)

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
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




I don't want to be rude, but agent T - please I have to differ in opinion. How do you know? how could it be that you are so sure? I mean, unless you took the image, transeferd it yourself to the computer, printed it yourself, and then posted it, you cannot be 100% sure that its not manipulated in any way..

I'm not trying to create a fight here, but unless you are the person who took the image we cannot be 100% sure of any thing - Because if you give me an image, I CAN create the same effect very very easily, then print it, scan it and mail it around....

any how, I do still love the pic as it could really be a self illuminated ghost, it could be any thing.... a good few photos of the same room with a decent camera would be great as well so we can get a real good idea of the lights ect




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
D4rk Kn1ght has the right idea (same as mine) it would be easy to create this image.

I have even done simular by accident. Discount Discount Discount



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_TvThe image was produced using a HP PSC 2350 All-In-One Inkjet Printer, Copier, and Scanner .NO PHOTOSHOP(at least post scanning)

I,m guessing the memory card was inserted from cam phone into scanner.
I would like to see a download direct from source and cutting out the middle man(HP) though.

Is it possible to get the image direct from cam to pc(if the image is still available from the phone cam)It would be beneficial to get the raw image direct.


[edit on 22-10-2006 by AGENT_T]


My post from two pages ago. editted for relevance


I,d take you guys up on your challenge to reproduce a similar pic.. just for fun of course



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Then thats what I will do.


.

I'll tell you what, shall I do it from scratch and then post it? i'll not post it here for derailing the mans threads not fair - i'll u2u you the imageshack link.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
D4rk Kn1ght,

I think you have struck upon that which I find rather obvious.

The light source is obviously above and behind the two girls in the foreground, hence the shadowing and such, to include more "brilliance" on the individual's head and shoulders in the background.

My "concern", if you will, is that the same level and/or degree of "brilliance" does Not carry thru to the individual's forearm seen further down behind and between the brunette's tricep and mid-torso region.

Even though it's a small portion of "her" forearm, it does Not have the same "light bleaching" or "ghost-like" characteristics as do the upper body.

Void of a higher-quality (dpi) scan of this image, I would have to hold true to my initial observations that the "editor" failed to apply the same "filters" to ALL visible portions, though I may ultimately be proven wrong.

Light is light, yet, in this image, it doesn't seem to carry thru on All visible portions.

That's my stance until demonstrated otherwise.

On a side note,
Dipso's relatively dismissive and Completely unsubstantiated "perception"/opinion, means little. I guess you'll have this with those who see no other purpose than to attempt to discredit such, void of demonstrating their own investigative measures.

Necessary "baggage", IMO.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I,m wondering why a light source would be a requirement to illuminate a ghost anyway.

Everyone one knows they cover themselves with luminous paint and get found out by scooby doo anyway


Seriously though.. We cannot see these phenomena by the naked eye for the most part so would appear that the normal lighting techniques do not seem to apply.

I,m still going for the expanded wavelength theory that seems to be producing more results in the paranormal field including UFO,s and such



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I see three light sources in the picture.

1. From the open door to the left.
2. Above the girls.
3. To the right of the girls almost parallel to the camera.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
This is a great picture and if it is real that's great!

Alot of you are claiming it can be done with Photoshop but do any of you realise that there are people out there that have job's that give them access to high end PC's that are designed to make high quality Digital Effect's? The Movie Industry,Video Game Industry,people that make commercials?

This image could have easily have been done with a PC that has high tech CGI capabilties.Just because it's on a public forum doesnt mean that it had to be done on Photoshop,lol.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
does the camera phone have a flash on it cause i know some do



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
absolutely can be done easily with CGI equipment and higher end software - that don't mean it ain't no ghost, though! (nice english, eh?)

I STILL think it looks a lot like a daguerro-type still portrait of e.g., George Washington posing on a dollar bill or something - the portrait maybe 'feathered' a bit, then blended in with a litlle refractive lighting effects, etc...

or it's a ghost that just happens to look like a bored statesman from a few hundred years ago.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Jak sent me a message to come on in and have a look at this, so here we go.

I dont see any overt instances of manipulation, then again what I'm working with as far as resolution with this image is less then what we'd need to be able to define any artifacts. I only have a small hint at an issue, which is the brunette's hair on the side of the "apparition", is awfully straight in relation to where the "ghost" is. Straight instances in hair are pretty unusual, and hard edges such as this usually point to post edits.

Like I said, I cant tell enough so there's insufficient data for me to say it definitely is.

I've read through the thread and read the account of how it was taken.

I then went back and read it again.

Subz, youre a goddamn genius.

I started to see benchmarks of "D'arcy" from SP, in the photo. I began to look at hairlines, shadowmarks, and eye shape and such. I took her photo and blurred it, and enlarged it past it's resolution to see if we had any common areas.

So, seeing what I did, here's a fade composite.



We have several, not a few, absolute matches in the crossfade. Shape of the lips, nose shadow, hairline, hairshadow, and in particular jawline and jawline shadow.

With these kinds of matches in consistency, I can hardly ascribe it to luck. The odds of such matching areas are...well...forget it. Lets also not forget one thing. Darcy's photo? Same light direction too.

So, here's an animated fade so you can see the overlay and the matches.



Look even where Darcy's noseline falls. I even see a bit of hint to the eyebrow in the ghost photo. I have also found an area of the ghost mouth, that has color that matches Darcy's lip color at the ghost's saturation levels.

So, had Subz not recognized that shot, I certainly wouldnt have seen it. I'm an Iron Maiden fan.


My only thought could be a person with some sort of printed mask, a poster, or an outright manipulation.

But as I say, too little info to be 100% sure. But I find the consistencies in the Darcy photo far too much to ascribe to luck or chance. If it's not that...it's frickin ridiculous how perfect they match.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Original posted by thesaint
No one actually noticed the anomaly at first it was my friend who picked it up some days later and nearly shot out of her skin with what she saw.

: -- Whau! It looks like a ghost, she shouted.
: -- Let me see! Hmm... Yeah, it atually does.
: -- Why not post it on ATS?
______________________

The above is merely a suggestion for the start of a fiction.

What bothers me in the statement from the initial post. "No one actually noticed the anomaly at first" sic! Why?? I mean the one who took the picture must at least have briefly viewed the result, as the one who printed it out must have checked it.

Could it be because they knew it was mum ..or granny ..or whomever ..or whatever it was, presumably by accident passed by at the moment of exposure. Then this friend comes around, not knowing the circumstancies of recording, but instantly perceives the oddity of the background image.

To me the "spookey" colorbalance looks like a blend of tungsten and flourescent light, with the latter mainly hitting the "ghost".

My suggestion is, there was a light tube on the ceiling and a conventionel lightpulb source in front of, a little above, quite close to the girls.

What about the original file or memory-card, as requested 3 pages ago. Will we get it, so the experts can draw some final conclusions to the trivia?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It's still the highest quality "ghost" photo I have ever seen. Nice work



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
WOW It DOES look like Darcy - I'm impressed about how he picked up on that too! I love hanging out with smart guys like you all!

That being said, I don't know if it a real picture or not, hell, I don't even care, really. I think it's a COOl picture to look at - real or not.

Thanks for bringing here!



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon

Original posted by thesaint
No one actually noticed the anomaly at first it was my friend who picked it up some days later and nearly shot out of her skin with what she saw.

: -- Whau! It looks like a ghost, she shouted.
: -- Let me see! Hmm... Yeah, it atually does.
: -- Why not post it on ATS?
______________________

The above is merely a suggestion for the start of a fiction.

What bothers me in the statement from the initial post. "No one actually noticed the anomaly at first" sic! Why?? I mean the one who took the picture must at least have briefly viewed the result, as the one who printed it out must have checked it.

Could it be because they knew it was mum ..or granny ..or whomever ..or whatever it was, presumably by accident passed by at the moment of exposure. Then this friend comes around, not knowing the circumstancies of recording, but instantly perceives the oddity of the background image.

To me the "spookey" colorbalance looks like a blend of tungsten and flourescent light, with the latter mainly hitting the "ghost".

My suggestion is, there was a light tube on the ceiling and a conventionel lightpulb source in front of, a little above, quite close to the girls.

What about the original file or memory-card, as requested 3 pages ago. Will we get it, so the experts can draw some final conclusions to the trivia?




Er No not really as they were just 2 kids messing around with a cam phone who printed off some pictures. They left them downstairs in the kitchen and a few days later the mother was flicking through them. The mother being a friend of mine who neither understands computers or is really bothered with computers to be honest was shocked by what she saw. The fact that the kids barely knew how to work the printer leads me to believe they are incapable of producing such pictures.

My friend i have been a member of ATS for a long time now and have never brought fabrications to this here site. This is not fiction on my part this is what i believe to be the truth and if it turns out to be a fake then i myself have been duped by someone i regard as a friend something i will not be happy about. Also the reason i posted it on here was not fabricating fiction it was merely to see what other members could make of it so we could work out its authenticity i mean thats what ATS is for after all



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon What bothers me in the statement from the initial post. "No one actually noticed the anomaly at first" sic! Why?? I mean the one who took the picture must at least have briefly viewed the result, as the one who printed it out must have checked it.



I know what you mean but,believe me, I,ve been with girls on professional photo shoots who haven,t even noticed that the four other guys in the shot have been messing around with stupid hats,writing on their faces and looked like they were entries in a gurning contest.

It,s just one of those adorable feminine traits.
I bet either girl didn,t see past wether their own hair was straight or their make up was perfect.


(Sits quietly waiting for the bombardment of ''you chauvinist'' comments)


[edit on 23-10-2006 by AGENT_T]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
thesaint,

Could you please find out who the third person was who took the pic? Was it a member of the family or another friend?

Thank you!



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Hey saint, I'm neither accusing nor suspecting you, I believe you to have acted in good faith, but like Valhala suggest, let's get some information on the circumstancies around the making of the picture. Who took it, who printed it out?

Cause as jritzmann puts it "the consistencies in the Darcy photo far too much to ascribe to luck or chance. If it's not that...it's frickin ridiculous how perfect they match". But as he also states "I dont see any overt instances of manipulation, then again what I'm working with as far as resolution with this image is less then what we'd need to be able to define any artifacts".

So again, you think the mother-source, the file it was printed from can be procured.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
jritzman that was some pretty good overlay there , i think you have somethng there. outstanding job detective.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I don't believe in the Darcy theory...I mean there a loads of paintings that could fit that profile. Plus the low quality of that image it's difficult to determine much besides that there is SOMETHING strange behind those two girls. I've used photoshop for 6 years and I'm very familiar with it...I think if they were serious about pulling a stunt like that they would want a picture with a better resolution which would leave little to suspect. However these days hoaxers are capable of anything....even playing dumb to make their story seem more believable. But I don't believe thesaint is one of them...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join