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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
thesaint, the picture looks great, thanks for sharing it.

To me, it's almost too good, which is why I have to cast some doubt on it. I believe that you're telling us the truth, in that you believe it's real, but there is a chance that the person who gave you the pic was trying to fool you with an edited image.

I decided to try and see if i can edit it myself, so here are my results.

I used the image you provided, as well as an image of George Washington I found here:

www.meggers.org...

I then edited out the ghost from the image in PS:



Btw, if anyone who wants to use the this edited image to make you ghost image, feel free to (that is if thesaint also is ok with this).

Next, I layered the images of the girls on top of the image of the statue (which has been cropped, blurred, as well as given a color dodge and burn in certain places, and then a 70% opacity). The result is this:






posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
[Mod edit: Exceedingly large quote removed]


Ritz: You the man!

I think he just solved our argument. It's a nice Photoshop of D'Arcy of the Smashing Pumpkins.

Thesaint, while you not wanting to disclose the identity of the girls because of their privacy may be noble, I would suggest that the best investigations allow questioners all access to information, including the identity of those making the alleged paranormal claims.

I suspect if we were to do a cursory search on his lady friends, we would likely find their names showing up on Myspace or other such places with a) mentions of the S.Pumpkins as one of their fav bands, b) the actual undoctored photo elsewhere online or c) some evidence online of one or the other girl's skill at doctoring pictures.

Since you're a moderator, I'm going to suppose you genuinely believed this picture and the girls' claims to be real. But I think you're being taken for a ride.

Our friend Ritz has, in my opinion, solved the mystery. And she would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!




Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I love the george washington? ghost you did there djmessiah! LOL



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
1. Could it be possible that the girls accidentally manipulated the picture? People that have little idea of how to work something often tend to just randomly push buttons when something doesn't happen the way they want it to. I've seen people do this many times as I pull my hair out.

2. Could they have run the picture paper thru the printer twice?

3. Could an image from a different picture been somehow interchanged with the subject picture within the electronics of either the camera or the printer?

4. Could the girls have just learned a neat trick and are having fun with their mother?

The first thing I would do is talk to the girls. Do they have another girlfriend that would fit the description of the ghost? Do any of the other pictures have a subject that would resemble the ghost?

We could speculate forever but I think going to the source of the pictures (the girls) is the best way to solve this riddle.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Nice work on the comparative images jritzmann


That image of D'Arcy (along with the rest of the Pumpkins) was once my desktop background for some time, so it pretty much instantly reminded me of her.

As far as I am concerned we have the following possibilities:

1) D'Arcy has sadly (and very quietly) passed away and is haunting people
2) A ghost that looks astonishingly similar to D'Arcy
3) A hoax using that exact photo of D'Arcy
4) A hoax using an image very much like that of D'Arcy


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

Well nobody is perfect



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
thesaint do you have any more pictures of those two girls in the same room?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

1) D'Arcy has sadly (and very quietly) passed away and is haunting people
2) A ghost that looks astonishingly similar to D'Arcy
3) A hoax using that exact photo of D'Arcy
4) A hoax using an image very much like that of D'Arcy


Sounds like nobody is really saying what is the 300lb. elephant in the room. Ritz got closest to it.

It's a Smashing Pumpkins poster behind the dark haired girl. Someone else then took that picture and toyed with the partial image of D'Arcy to create this ghostly image.

Now, I'd hate to think that someone just took a random Myspace picture from the web and doctored it without the owner's permission......



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The picture ws taken with the phone cameras timer and wsa leant on a dvd box on a cabinet. Thats how they managed to take the photo.

I would not release the details of these 2 girls even if it was up to me. They are both under 16 so i think its fair.

I dont think that D,Arcy picture resembles the spook on your fade in/out. Its a trick of the eye with that technique it almost leads you to believe its the same picture however upon blatantly looking at both pictures they are clearly not of the same person.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
The picture ws taken with the phone cameras timer and wsa leant on a dvd box on a cabinet. Thats how they managed to take the photo.


DVD box, huh? What movie was it? Does this camera phone have a flash capability? And in debate of the lighting effects, we're talking an overhead light, correct?



I dont think that D,Arcy picture resembles the spook on your fade in/out. Its a trick of the eye with that technique it almost leads you to believe its the same picture however upon blatantly looking at both pictures they are clearly not of the same person.


I disagree with you here. I think the similarities are too compelling to be coincidental.

Again, I'm leaning toward a doctored D'Arcy image that originally was a poster behind the dark-haired girl.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
oh yeah a possible poster or maybe something wrong with the scanner could have produced that i agree there. I know there was no poster but as the machine they used was a printer scanner copier then mabe some image could have been left on there or maybe the paper.

I totally dont agree with the photshop argument beacause i know that has not happened but some bizarre twist whereas a image was already on the paper or scanner is a possibility



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Also from what i am told the camera did have a flash facility but not too powerful. Instead i am led to believe it is more like a white LED light rather than a strobe like flash



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
Also from what i am told the camera did have a flash facility but not too powerful. Instead i am led to believe it is more like a white LED light rather than a strobe like flash


Again, I ask, on what DVD was the camera sitting?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
jritz, dj - are BOTH correct in that the techniques to do this are not only possible, but not even that difficult. I would have found a better image of George - but the stute proves the point: you don't even need a 'dead president' portrait to pull this off - just a re-touched photo of a marble statue.

If we could get the original, I'm sure one of our fellow talented ASTers could grab a chunk of the poster on the wall behind the girls, enlarge it a bit, brighten it up, add some more 'effects', and layer it behind our innocent tennyboppers without much trouble at all. Maybe it IS D'arcy - maybe it's George. Who cares?

Tho bottom line: Halloween approaches and here we have a very spooky looking, intriguing, even mystifying snapshot that for those who PREFER to believe, will likely PREFER it was real ghost - because it SURE DOES LOOK LIKE ONE!

But looking like a ghost does not make it a ghost. Sorry - there just is not enough empirical evidence available to make the determination that it IS in fact, a ghost. No witnesses, no camera details, no access to the room, the mom, the printer - nothing else. Therefore we can only conclude that what we have here is an image that looks "ghostly".

ONWARD! There are plenty on other intriguing topics to explore at AST!

But thanks for sharing, saint! BOOoooooooo...WooooooWooooooo Booooooooo



Trick or treat everyone! (my vote: trick:dn



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
A very nice picture. Hope you guys can determine the authenticity of this pic.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes

Originally posted by thesaint
Also from what i am told the camera did have a flash facility but not too powerful. Instead i am led to believe it is more like a white LED light rather than a strobe like flash


Again, I ask, on what DVD was the camera sitting?


From what i have just received in my replied email the DVD was "Peter Kay, Live at the top of the tower" Somehow he looks nothing like this woman.

And whoever it was above that made the comment about i must have posted this believing it to be true because im a MODERATOR then please look again. I am not a moderator at all????????????

Also i posted this picture as i believed it to be true and i still do. I said at the beginning all i had ws this crappy printed picture people and thats all i have so PMs asking for the original and stuff there aint much i can do there. She printed a picture off and i now have that original. She doesnt have the image saved as far as she knows as i mentioned she no whizz on computers. By all means i would post this picture to to anyone who thinks they could do something with it. Thats what this is about trying to see its authenticity. If it turns out not to be real then i can strongly state it has not been done purposefully and would instead be some strange oddity with the camera phone or printer/scanner/copier



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   




From what i have just received in my replied email the DVD was "Peter Kay, Live at the top of the tower" Somehow he looks nothing like this woman.

And whoever it was above that made the comment about i must have posted this believing it to be true because im a MODERATOR then please look again. I am not a moderator at all????????????


My fault. I am sorry. I thought your designation was moderator.

And I will definitely go with you on that Peter Kay thing. Not at all like the female artifact in the picture.

Although, I'm still leaning toward a Smashing PUmpkins picture in there somewhere.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Using some of the arguments here you could never prove a photo of anything unless you were the person taking it!!

I am not convinced by the D'arcy theory, though.

What I find puzzling is the fact that the area we would define as its body is kind of misty and ill defined, yet the face has some kind of definition (by comparison anyway)?

I am curious what the girls (under 16?) make of it themselves.

I also find that the longer you stare at it there are two possible orientations of the "face".

1) Staring towards the girls...D'arcy style

2) More towards the door...the face is seen in a kind of side on silhouette style...with most of the cranium area missing.

MMM tis indeed interesting. But as always people will see what they want to see.
Ultimately photos cant prove much, just fuel debate.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Maybe we should call the Scooby Gang to have them investigate this for us. Does anyone know the girs in the pic? Ask them who it is.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Thanks Thesaint for that post!! As an artist I use PS often, and have made fake ghost pics, and have much exp with this.. I took this pic into my PS and can say it has not been placed in. Its a natural affect of some kind.. Paranormal is natural I belive. However cameras have been known to capture light at werid angles to make things apear otherwise when its light refraction.. But I cant say this pic is light refraction. IMO this is a real paranormal picture, and I will log this with a couple others I have found..



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
What you have here is an image shot in indoor lighting so it is a relatively long exposure time. The ghost is someone who was walking very quickly behind the girls that are the subject. When the shutter opened the moving person was visible in the frame and when it closed they had moved behind the subjects. Everything in this image supports that and nothing refutes it.

Those of you with Photoshop. Magnify this image without resizing until you can start to see the individual pixels. You will then be able to see the classic trail of the motion blur. Do not re-size as you have been doing. When you re-size the software interpolates (fills in the new pixels based on info from neighboring pixels). My guess is a girl of about the same age walking very fast through the room. I'm sure the girls in the photo know exactly who it is and are having a little fun with the photo.

I've looked at this image before somewhere else on the Internet. I'm pretty sure it was within the last couple of months. It is not new. Whoever gave you this has posted it before.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join