Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Caught On Camera (Ghost)

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Thanks 12m8keall2c.

Also in 2 mins or less i will post a pic set at a higher dpi. waiting for 2400 was taking too long so i have done a pic at 700 dpi.

Now i dont underwstand this dpi stuff but i think it makes the clarity of the picture worse. But maybe better for the experts




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I have read this thread with great interest.

But ultimately we are discussing / arguing about a digital image that no longer exists, taken by some girls we do not know.

Also that digital image was from a camera phone, not exactly David Bailey territory is it?

So we are witnessing a digital image from a low end camera with all the algorithms and dodgy maths therein. This was downloaded to a printer and printed, again digitally (who knows what digital processing that involves?).

This print is then again scanned (more processing) and posted on a website.

I am not fool enough to believe that with all those stages of digital manipulation that the image is any where near a true representation of the original event.

Why take up so much time discussing it? I think its great that there is a willingness to investigate here at ATS, keeps the thinking muscles keen


But really I think that the discussion is more indicative of the lack of credible evidence of a ghost generally with all the years of looking. Just a couple of Eurocents



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I agree we're dealing with a much less then definitive source, but when thats all we have to go by, then really thats all the evidence or data that there is.

I go thru this alot with the UFO stuff I work with on almost a daily basis. Essentially people want their photos to be genuine unknowns, and despite what examination says, people will always believe what their heart tells them, because they want to.

The bottom line is more resolution of an already poor quality and printed image isnt really going to get us anywhere new. Are the hallmarks pointed out a result of poor quality? I dont personally think so, but stranger sh&*t happens. As a rule I dont usually examine data thats not direct from the source, and a fairly good quality. But seeing as a Moderator asked me to come in and look, well, Mods help us all so I certainly dont mind helping them when asked.

From the quality of data presented here, I have to stick with what inconsistent information it shows, and point out some very unlikely senarios that would have to occur for this to be a genuine article. At present time with present quality data, it's not holding up. At the very best, highly inconclusive.

If anyone makes any sort of higher end data available, let me know. I'll be glad to go thru it again. I'm back on the other side of the fence with the "aliens" if ya need anything.


~Jeff



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Allah the moon god Why take up so much time discussing it? ...


On my part?? honestly??
Complete and utter boredom!!

It,s the first time since I left school I,ve been unable to work.
4 weeks now and I want to discover the meaning of life the universe and everything... Or at least climb into the refridgerator to see if the light goes out for definite when you close the door.arrrrgggghhh going madddddd!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   


You have voted jritzmann for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Thanks for all the hard work and the patient explanations. I've learned a lot in this thread, and appreciate you taking the time.

And I agree with 12m8keall2c, I certainly think the OP is blameless here, and has posted a very interesting picture. I also wouldn't jump on your friend who gave you the picture. My guess is the girls. I'm pretty sure you said that no-one noticed the ghost at first. Maybe they printed the picture, and then decided to have a little fun with Mum so doctored the picture in PS, and Mum, surprised at the sudden appearance of a ghostly figure, passed the pic onto you knowing your supernatural interest? I know this is speculative, but it would explain a few things. Anyways, thanks to all for the making my life a little less boring!




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Higher res pic

[edit on 24-10-2006 by thesaint]



[edit on 24-10-2006 by thesaint]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
AGENT T

Check out your PMs



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
?where?
Did you forget the link?

Don't jump to conclusion.
I still have the impression there was a glas or transparent plastic plate (dvd box) used and photgraphed through that contains all the dark spots 'duc tape' things and dirt.. that might explain overlaping.

I've a problem about the pixel line that was pointed out going from ghost to girl and back ..I don't see how you could aasign the pixel to the ghost or the tshirt. I see the line staying all the time between the ghost and the shirt.

The only thing that really is irritating me is the black spot on that left shoulder because this should be the background and the only background that comes close is the girls hair. But that is missing there.

Vall's head shadow I cant really see.
Can you maybe outline it in the pic?
I see a lot of dark dirts spots as pointed out but no distinct shadow of another person.

looking froward to the highres pic.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
No sorry my paint module wont work so i cant block out the girls faces on this higher res pic so i have sent it to Agent T and hopefully they should post it soon if they manage to do it.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   


Quick as i could. I just put it through photo studio and blocked the faces with a colour not used in the original



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I dont understand all this photoshop editing and forgery but on this higher res pic i zoomed in on the pixelation which seems a lot clearer. It seems very complcated to say the least that someone could have corrected all those pixels.

As i said i have no idea about these things though



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Looks better. Thought that is still the same resolution...

? didnt you say one with higher resolution?

The little lovely bug on the tshirt has gone.
Was it on the scanner?

Also the left ear of the brown girl looks much better now!

I was about to mention it but decided to wait for the highres pic, in the old one the left ear of the girl looked like it was split in two parts : upper and lower, and 1 pixel missplaced. There you really had a strange edge! guess it was from scanning.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint on this higher res pic i zoomed in on the pixelation which seems a lot clearer.


Me too on the area that was under question around ghosty,s neck.On the higher res scan I found only three patching pixels in a row with my software.A pretty impressive forgery if so.

The idea that this could be fabricated from a cam phone is way beyond my abilities and I,m pretty sure a couple of girls messing around wouldn,t be into it at this level.Especially being aware of editting software being logged with a digi photo,s properties too.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
You'd be surprised what young girls are into these days. And remember, they probably didn't expect mum to give it to a guy who would post it on the world's most popular conspiracy website!



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
So in this newer pic it looks as thought the little curly-line thingy the guy drew was actually tracing the folds in the brown-haired girl's shirt on her shoulder, right?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I saw earlier in the thread people talking about the shoulder of the girl on the right, and that is an easily explained area, it's the shirt! It's a low cut V-neck shirt, and you can trace it through her over shirt, that is why there is that little V that people called overlay:



I outlined the path of her undershirt to show where it leads to and why this V is created.

Also, with that in consideration, V contains the same color as the "neck" of the "ghost" I think this picture is very hard to describe as fake.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Good call, LionHeart. I agree, it's the undershirt. This new pic sure addresses some issues on the shoulder/ghosty area. Now, if we can figure out why there is a head shadow on their belly-region when the phone was supposed to be resting on something and shot the pic on timer, we'll be back in business.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
@valhall
could you pleas show me the head shadow, i really don't see it.

yes guess the shoulder line photoshop edit proof thing is away of the table with the new picture. the line is really between ghost and thsirt all the time. At least i see that so, but I am no expert.

Also I am glad to see that the black edge turned to a green that fits not with the hair but the under shirt.

Ah an dthe little bug I found nof on top left of the image.. do you keep insects on your scanner glas plate ? lol

Well, I have something new:
That bothers me now and that is this clean vertical white cut of the ghosts back head/hear parallel to the door frame. That wasn't that stright before.
well I know scanner tend to do that but had expected to have rather a smooth edge there..maybe its a reflection of something and not part of the ghost because all the rest of the ghost looks smooth



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Is it possible that the "head shadow" is just dirt on the flash of the camera?

Or maybe just discoloration due to lens dirt? or something along those matters?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
here you go, g





[edit on 10-24-2006 by Valhall]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join