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.

 

VOTE: are these the top 10 best ghost photos ever

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I stumbled across this paranormal investigation organisation that has recently held a competition to find and study the worlds best ghost photos.

They received over a quarter of a million votes.

Out of the 250 photos they had submitted only 15% couldn't be disproved.

Following is the top ten list of ghost photos that have been studied by photographic experts who claim there is no tampering.

What do you think? Which would you say is the best, I personally like number 10 its dang scary


These photos will be discussed at the Edindurgh Science festival on April 1...is science taking paranormal seriously? Ill post their discussion if I can find it.

www.richardwiseman.com...

Additionally, these photos are submitted for disproving or explanation if anyone is interested, we can come up with answers here


scienceofghosts.wordpress.com...

Cheers Zazz
Edit Add: please add your own top ghost photo to see if our list is better.




[edit on 083131p://f53Sunday by zazzafrazz]




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
This is a neat subject and I like all the new ghost photos so I flagged it. Sometimes I think there is a ghost in my house but it is probably the coffee talking and maybe a wee buzz as well. Some people float the idea that some of these ghosts are ephemeral trans dimensional beings or even time travelers but they could also just be figments of our imagination. Ghost photos are easier to debunk than modern UFO photos because the ghost photos are often pareidolia or double exposures. The modern UFOs and videos are often lights so you can't really say what they are. I also like how you can vote on each photo at the link you provided and it would be cool to be able to do that here with all sorts of phenomena.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
How can some of these not have been disproven? Look at the first link

The Ninth place one is caused by motion blur.

The eighth place one I was under the impression had already been proven to be a hoax done by photoshopping???? I could be recalling incorrectly on that one though. I know it has been discussed here on ATS though.

7th place looks pretty darn photoshopped to me. It looks as though there was some one standing there in the picture and some one edited it to make it look that way.

6th place is an obvious double exposure.

4th place appears to be more of an optical illusion

3rd looks like an intentional motion blur or double exposure. It looks as though they were trying to fake it.

1st place is brand new and has hardly had anytime to be analyzed.

Bottom line, I have seen FAR better pictures than these. I dont mean to come across as rude, but who ever was the judge really doesnt know much about photography if they let alot of motion blur and double exposure pics get through like that.

now for the second link.


Take a look at the picture of the two boys on the couch. There are two photos provided. One has a woman standing there the other doesnt. Yet the two boys have not moved even a fraction of an inch for both photos. It would be wise to say that they are one and the same. One was photoshopped the other was not.

The one of the "ghost on a pier" ? The pier is so far away that it could very easliy be just a person standing there... The detail is distorted by the distance....

"Light on a fan" appears to be light shining through a window onto a mirror or some shiny surface on the other side of that door....

"face in the water" I s just an optical illusion.


"TV ghost" All I see there is an over exposed picture. Too much natural light coming in through the window... Oh yeah, and the use of photoshop.

"Candle ghost" Is caused by more motion blur.

'Ghost behind bars" Is far to blurry and distorted for ANYONE to make a real legitimate claim one way or the other. It looks like dirt or graffiti on the walll though....

"Tower ghost" Is obviously full of motion blur distorting the picture and creating that image.

"More mist" Some one has been smoking havent they?


Now I dont mean to be blunt or rude or anything, SO please forgive me. I have just seen so much better examples of ghosts photos. SO many of these can be explained away by human error and natural phenomena. I am indeed a believer in ghosts. I have seen them for myself. I was playing the role of sceptic today because, well actually I think most of these photos are not ghosts at all.

Truly, alot of those photos are caused by motion blur, double exposure, photoshopping and optical illusions. NOt all, but most....

Forgive me for making such a long and winded post.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Oh I forgot to say, No they are far from the best ones ever.

Most are either faked, double exposed or motion blurred photos.

Perhaps send a u2u to internos to come check them out he is our resident photo analysis expert and will know for sure!

I am certain his analysis will be fairly close to mine though.... Although much shorter and less blunt.

Sorry again if I came across as rude. I dont mean to be.


[edit on 29-3-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
GST, not being rude to me
I just posted for others to look at and disprove or annalyse...I agree with you on most.
I'm also really pleased there is a science conference discussing it. Aswell as a quarter of a million people voting.

You still leave some that you've left out so you think are possible ghosts? Ie 10 and 5?

I'll invite anyone to this thread to include anyone wanting to post their top photos to create our own top ten
Have you got 1?
Mine:


re the 2nd posting, Id say Ghost on a peir is still up for debate.
Light near a fan is just dumb.

I will u2u internos and get his expertise to this thread

Thanks for your detailed reply, much appreciated

Zazz




[edit on 093131p://f01Sunday by zazzafrazz]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Thank you for bringing this one to my attention.
One thing i have to state beforehand is that what is needed in order to do some serious analysis would be the original image (in case of digital capture) or the original film (in case of analog one). In case of lack of them, then we would need some valid explanation about such a lack.

  • Having the original digital image you can make a long series of assessments: for example, in a completely static scene, some smoke caught with a six seconds exposure time would generate a "ghost" effect because of its odd shape and its semi-transparency. This case occurred at least in a couple of the shots that we see, in my opinion, but since i don't have exif data on which to base my assessments, that is just an opinion, which could be wrong, but we won't know it in some conclusive way until exif data will be available.

  • Having the original film, you can work straight on what was caught in the moment of the opening of the diaphragm: this would warrant you at least the opportunity to rule out every possible glitch or other stuff formed (purposely or not) during the print of the photo.


    In general, I'm in agreement with gimme_some_truth: i'm not claiming that they are exactly what gimme_some_truth stated, but i think that they are all perfectly consistent with his analysis: i mean, there's nothing to explain nor to debunk because we don't have elemnts enough in order to say something conclusive, all we can do is to guess using reason, logic and common sense.

  • Tenth place:
    it's not even worthy to be commented, the shot is obviously blurred, there's not a single detail clear: if all the scene was sharp and the ghost was still there, then we could say something more, but at the status quo the photo is meaningless. It's not even within the best 1.000 ghost photos if you ask me, i took accidentally some better "ghosts photos".

  • Ninth place:
    what you have to do in these cases, is to look at the environnment: we have car parked, a street, and ARTIFICIAL lighting: so, basically, we have a static scenario that we can photograph even with a ten second exposure time and we would get a clear shot, since nothing is moving: but you need a tripod in order to do that. This effect can be obtained even by taking a long exposure shot of someone walking, or running, using a long exposure time, all you have to do is to don't give to the electronic sensor the time to get the full shape of the moving object. BUt also moisture, or smoke, could generate something similar, but in my opinion the scene shows a walking/running man. I'd love to see exif data, which unfortunately are not available.

  • Eighth place:
    published by The Sun, discussed here
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    i would see the original image with all exif data available, otherwise the photo can be considered a crock, likely a photoshop and even a VERY bad work.

  • 7th place:
    I don't know what really looks to be interesting in this photo: all i can say is "carry on".

  • 6th place:
    double exposure, but i guess accidental.

  • 5th place:
    i admit that i don't see any "face" here, nice car though


  • 4th place:
    i don't see anything here, but this could be my fault.

  • 3rd place:
    look at the shape of the lamp to the right and you will realize how this photo was taken: what should look like a sphere (or whatever, but a streetlamp) looks to be what you see there.

  • 2nd place:
    Pareidolia

  • 1st place:
    now this is VERY interesting:
    but i would like to see the original image, and anyway the enhancement was made in some wrong way, or it's NOT an enhancement of the original image:

    the enhancement has a different allignment from the original shot, besides, there is no way to get that result from that photo, unless they have some better res image (but in this case i wonder why they dont share it):
    the red line shows the difference in the inclination of the balcony, so they should explain why they did rotate the image after its enhancement. The enhancement is interesting, but i'd like to see the original image.

    Just my two humble €. cents


    Kudos to gimme_some_truth for providing a serious and unbiased analysis on them, and thanks again for sharing.



  • posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by zazzafrazz

    You still leave some that you've left out so you think are possible ghosts? Ie 10 and 5?


    Well, I left a few out because I was not sure about them, I suspect alot of the ones I left out are not ghost photos, but with my limited knowledge I was unable to think of a reasonable eartlhy explanation for them, if that makes sense.

    I should have said that in my other posts, but for whatever reason I didn't think to do so.

    For the ones I left out, I would be surprised to find out they were real ghost photos, but in all honesty I couldnt think of a very reasonable, with out a doubt, explanation like I felt for the ones I did discuss.

    I am glad I did not come across as rude. I thought mabye I was being blunt and that some one might interprit that as rude.

    Now I am going to go look at what internos had to say!

    peace and love

    GST



    posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:28 AM
    link   
    From the first link, the one in 8th place, I would bet my life savings on it being a wire mesh model.

    I remember seeing a thread on here about it, and it looks like that to me.

    As I said, life savings.

    There aren't really any I find that interesting, as I could take a weird photo and come up with any reason as to why I took it etc.

    tO



    posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:33 AM
    link   
    This takes second place to me.



    This next one takes first place - but I don't know how to make it appear for you all. You'll have to click on the link. It's the Brown Lady Ghost.




    posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:33 AM
    link   
    reply to post by gimme_some_truth
     


    GST do you have links for ones you think are better than these?? I thought these were pretty interesting and some could be faked. I would like to see which ones you think are the best



    posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

    Take a look at the picture of the two boys on the couch. There are two photos provided. One has a woman standing there the other doesnt. Yet the two boys have not moved even a fraction of an inch for both photos. It would be wise to say that they are one and the same. One was photoshopped the other was not.

    I take it you did not spend hours playing spot the differences in a waiting room going over all the highlights magazines available.... Those two photos of the boys are not the same if you look at the boy on the right his fingers of his left hand are different position in one than the other.

    That does not make it legit, but I just wanted to point out they were indeed different photos.



    posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by NephraTari
    I take it you did not spend hours playing spot the differences in a waiting room going over all the highlights magazines available.... Those two photos of the boys are not the same if you look at the boy on the right his fingers of his left hand are different position in one than the other.

    That does not make it legit, but I just wanted to point out they were indeed different photos.


    I was about to state the same thing, they are clearly not identical photographs. The head of the boy on the left it at a different angle than in the first photo - also the camera itself is in a slightly different position... likewise I also agree this neither proves or disproves the 'ghost'.



    posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:55 PM
    link   
    Thanks Internos for responding to u2u. You're a champ

    I have the name of the guy who took the last castle photo and I will see what I can get off him, everyone is accessable nowadays


    Regarding images on 4 and 5
    the nice car; look in the side mirror, not rear view but left side and there is a face.
    The 4th one is a black shadow under the boulder, I also skipped over that as I couldnt see what they initially meant. Still doesn't look like a ghost to me.

    I do want to look more at the 2nd posting with the peir 'ghost'. Internos can you give some info on this also please, its the 2nd link.'

    goathief/Nephratari and GST, I am in agreeance the boys on the couch is circumspect.




    [edit on 093131p://f01Tuesday by zazzafrazz]



    posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:43 PM
    link   
    I believe in ghosts and believe those pics to be real..... I got the chills!



    new topics

    top topics



     
    6

    log in

    join