Ghostly cell phone image creates buzz

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Now_Then, check out the original link's article, then you can click on another picture which the family has supplied of the departed lady in quesiton....resemblance looks pretty solid, even to me as a stranger.....the eyes.....




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360


I blew up the photo, if this makes any difference



[edit on 7/30/2009 by bl4ke360]


Do you think we could tell some thing by the facial expretion of the 'ghost' ?

Is ahe looking at the kid, like an grandma would, or is she looking at the camera ..



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
This is very easy to photoshop for someone who's been trained / had lots of experience.

Photoshop.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 



Just to put my spin on it i noticed in the upper middle portion of the enlarged
photo a barely perceptible ovaloid lens flare that covers BOTH the little girl
AND the face behind it. If the photo is fake, then someone actually
took the time to put in a non-standard subtle lens flare effect that is NOT
present in even the latest versions of Photoshop, or Boris Effects
or that $15,000 LensFX module used in Discreet's Flame compositing engine.

Another poster had said about the woman in a mirror which I suspect
is the correct thing...I also half-believe that we are in fact seeing the
actual Photographer reflected off of a portion of a simple wall-vanity
mirror that was probably forgotten about by the original photo submitter.

The one that that gets me though is the AGE of the person in the background
AND the extreme similarity in basic looks to the little girl but much more aged
appearance of that background person. Can we say....Time Slip anyone?

I have an unusal question for the photographer and little girl
in that I wish to know if they remember a sudden drop in temperature
within the room where the photo was taken at that time...it's an important
thing for me to know.......I have no other questions ;-) :-)



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Just to say something... not that I'm a professional, anyway. I took some photography classes in high school, back in the stone ages, and we experimented with pinhole cameras. This photo kind of reminds me of that. Look at the little girl, then at the woman behind her. If you were to place the child on the lap of the woman, then have the woman hold the cell phone out in front of her at arm's length or less, to take a picture of them both... (we know what exceptional quality cell phone pictures are). I can see the woman in the back, slightly leaning to the right, as if she were holding something in front of her, but having to bend her arm slightly out of the way, as the little girl is on her lap(possibly) as well as trying to look into the camera herself. The little girl is very close to the actual cell phone itself, which accounts for the slight distortion of image, much like a pinhole camera would create. So essentially, the woman has the girl on her lap, and is 'self-shooting' the photo. Thoughts?

On second look, it doesn't quite look like the child is IN her lap... maybe in a high-chair or on a stool or some sort. But still looks to me to be self-shot.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by bery300]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
How exactly does sunlight reflect off the skin of ghost and create a shadow off the cheek, nose and eyebrow of the ghost?

Intentional Hoax or an accidental Composite Image is the only question here in my book.


Obviously it occurs due to unknown phenomenon, which we will never know until we can catch a ghost and study it.

Why do we always attribute rational logic to negate the irrational - and it is irrational until we understand it.

I'd like to see a picture of the room from the same location, without the girl in the way - to verify there is nothing in the background to trick the eye. Other than that, I do agree - either a hoax or something bizarre. But I wont use logical thinking to verify nor negate it, thats illogical.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


It looks like a fake to me. It's too clear, and look at the expression. There is none. It looks like a mask to me, perhaps propped up bend the little girl.

Other wise creeped me out for a second, then I realized it.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
People this pic has been going around for months on the internet. Its been attached to spam and chain emails. I saw this months ago but the story was different. A Babysitter in the UK supposedly took it.

If the story is fabricated which it is then it is fake! Its just an old lady standing behind a kid. The news station was duped. I wish I could remeber the details of the orginal "story."

Its just a real as a prince who needs your help securing his families fortune.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
Kinda reminds me of this famous photo.



While not the same field (ie UFO's rather than ghosts) its still rather interesting their similarity.

I dont know people are saying its to good or the person doesn't look like a ghost (as if thats supposed to carry any weight since who among us know what a ghost really looks like, and how could we prove it anyhow).

I guess you can only take the photos takers word for it, give it time and im sure that if its a fake the identity and their connection to the photographer will come to light, on the other hand who knows perhaps a long gone relative was catching up and unfortunately got 'caught'


Me im for fake "hey gran get in behind!" but i aint tossing aside the possibility its not a long departed individual.

ShiftTrio's closing paragraph above this post summed it up perfectly in my mind.

Edit:- Hmm anyone else think their related, the old womans got a face with very similar features to the kid in front of her, definitely say they are related... maybe their one in the same
... i kid, or do I?



[edit on 30-7-2009 by BigfootNZ]



MY TAKE:
===========
Regarding this photo...I am going on PURE SPECULATION HERE that
IF the photo is a true and accurate representation of the events
told, I THINK i can explain why the CAMERA saw the astronaut/alien
but the human eye did not....It has recently come to my attention that
certain new (hmm...make that OLD!) types of materials can be manufactured
to BEND or REDIRECT optical frequencies around or away
from a 3D object.

These substances, called metamaterials, are 3D stacked nano-objects
that can act as waveguides at optical and microwave freqencies
which in laymans terms, can make things INVISIBLE to both the
human eye and radar.

I going to go out on a limb here and suggest that IF the photo is real,
then the astronaut/alien was wearing a suit that was invisible to
the 400nm to 700nm wavelengths of the human eye that has the
unique property of having a problem with excessive Persistence of Vision
or in other words, the eye's shutter speed is pretty slow which would
allow a being cloaked in a metamaterial-based suit to use the 3D
nano-scale optical waveguides embedded on the suit's surface to
redirect light around or away from the suit at a specific frequency
that is compatible with human vision but still visible to fast shutter-speed
film that goes beyond capturing the limited human-scale 400 to 700 nm
visible light into the near infra-red and low ultra violet which many films
in that era of 1950-1970 would be perfectly capable of. The human eye
woudn'y see anything because the optical waveguides would overload the
human vision system with re-directed light but a FILM CAMERA,
having a fast shutter speed and wider range of chrominance & luminance
absorption ability WOULD show up the suit in a final silver-halide print!

This is speculation on my part but do peruse the websites below
or search on the web using search terms such as 3D Metamaterials,
Visual Stealth Using Metamaterials, Optical Stealth, Microwave Stealth,
and Nano-scale Optical Waveguides.

See:

www.physorg.com...

and

nextbigfuture.com...

and

en.wikipedia.org...

Comments anyone?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bery300
 


another cellphone picture nice might be something to this but ive had enough of this cellphone stuff did you know that if you text message you can still drive a commuter train in boston a women in houston who was such a good customer was rewarded with extra roll over minutes when she drove her suv into a bayou while talking on her phone she survived but gave her 4 children dirt naps because she never took them to swimming lessons did you know that if take your kids to day care in your suv for 10 yrs and you talk on you cellphone while your dropping them off they dont really like it humm saw 2 little girls in the dfw airport terminal one 7ish shes happy does a cartwheel im thinkin its nice to this happiness displayed but then her baby sister 5ish is thinkin the me too thing and she does one as well im thinkin this is nice to see then her cellphone drops out from somewhere kids dont even have time to be kids with these things come on mom and dad set an example if you cant then stop breeding im nobody special im aircraft mechanic im working on airplane systems and the flight crew comes out asks a bunch of questions and sits on the plane while im working and turns that baby into virtual phone booth you couldnt dynomite them out of there until there done with theyre 27 cellphone calls some times i just get these uncontrollable twitches and i dont know where they come from!



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I guess the lighting in heaven, or hell, must be exactly the same as in this lady's room. Both the old woman and child are being illuminated by the same light source. Quite interesting for a being who was presumably not solid when the picture was taken. Furthermore, whoever that other person is, they were asked to sit on their knees or on a chair to have their face in the photo.

Sorry folks, but that is not a "ghost".


If ghosts are real, and I'm not entirely sure they are, how is it you and that other poster know for certain what would or would not reflect or how it would interact with the environment at all? All I see is a very interesting picture, and alot of assuming going on. You know what they say when you assume...

Chrono



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
There's an old woman standing behind the kid. Whoopty do!

People can claim all they want to claim, but if nobody spoke the word ghost anyone looking at this photo would think "composition sucks, why is the old lady cropped out of the photo".

It's just a bad photo and somebody lying imo.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
i'm not saying it is photo-shopped. But give me a picture of a kid and an old person, and i could do something comparable.

What would be useful is a picture of the great grandmother the family believes to be the apparition . . .



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I really think it's just an old woman standing behind the girl, but you're all welcome to your opinions.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by KIRKSTERUK
This is very easy to photoshop for someone who's been trained / had lots of experience.

Photoshop.


I am working with composites at the moment, through 3DS Max and Photoshop in the main.

Please tell us how this particular image is "very easy" to do?

I look forward to your reply.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 



I'm not doubting you, but I've gone through a bunch of keyword searches on Google and cannot find an earlier version of this pic. Are you sure it's the same pic?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Sadly theres no way of completely clarifying if the woman is a ghost or not. Either it is a ghost or it's been faked, both of which is possible, so you either tust the person who took it or you don't. I'm sitting on the fence on this on because I can't completely trust someone I don't know and have no information on. This sadly is the problem we face because there are sooo many hoaxers out there.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
can someone imbed the image in the posts? I can't link out at work.

Please?

edit to add: Scratch that, I see it...sorry...and gravitybender your wife is hot


[edit on 31-7-2009 by midnightbrigade]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Yes the ghost does seem to resemble the little girl, almost an older her or possibly shes been reincarnated. But if this image is proven to be authentic (the story being true) then this is definently an eerie picture, kinda gave me the creeps because I thought the anomally would be much smaller. Great find OP be interesting to hear about this in the future.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 


Double Exposure... Now why would double exposure age the 2nd image???? Some new type of crazy time channel DE??????





new topics
 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join