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.

 

Ghost captured on camera in Norwich?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Ghost captured on camera in Norwich?


www.advertiser24.co.uk

It would add a whole new meaning to the words “scary movie”, but could a ghost have been captured on camera at a Norwich cinema?

City-based photographer Andrew Kitt felt chills down his back as he processed his pictures from a photo shoot at Cinema City.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I will be working my magic through photoshop with this one. While I think the photo is authentic I do not think it is of one person hunching over. I really think this is two people dancing.

Here's the original photo:



Here's where I make my case:



Decide for yourself! It looks like two people dancing ballet, maybe old style from the turn of the 19th century - I'm not sure but that's what I see when I look at this.

If you like this S+F!!


www.advertiser24.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Thank you for your post. That is a very peculiar looking body. It seems all out of proportion. In fact, it almost looks like 2 images superimposed over each other just slightly out of alignment to give a hazy outline. Defiantly not a ghost I don’t think.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Whatever it turns out to be it's certainly interesting. It does look like "tudor" dress. Almost like Shakespeare would have worn maybe?

I'll be staying tuned to see what you conclude with the photo.

Good find!

edit to add: I'm trying to see the dancers but I can't. Looks more like he's bowing; as in to royalty or someone. His poor leg is mighty contorted!
Like a double exposure...but not. Some kind of time warp?

[edit on 8/4/0909 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Wow cool picture, makes you wonder about the afterworld..



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Nice find, star and flag.

The 'twisted' appearance is most unusual. Perhaps your theory of dancing is correct. I will be following this topic.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
hmm, thats easy. its a fake.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pudgeego
 


An explanation as to why you so quickly came to this conclusion would be appreciated. It is typical for someone who makes a comment such as this to explain the reasons they believe their statement to be true.

TIA.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I'm not going to dismiss it outright, but I'd like to see this analyzed by a professional first.

Although the way the lights look it seems like it could possibly be a double exposure on a tripod. First shot on a fast shutter speed, then someone steps into frame and makes a movement and a second shot on a slower shutter.

But who knows.

(EDIT) I also wanted to add that if you look behind the body you can see tiles in the back hallway, and yet around the body the light has drowned out the tile lines.

I have a feeling ghosts don't block light behind them.

My opinion is leaning towards fake.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Zenic]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pudgeego
hmm, thats easy. its a fake.


You're fake. Prove to us otherwise. Photo won't do. Could be CGI, or Photoshop. Concrete physical evidence, or you're a hoax.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
TBH that looks like a double exposed, motion blurred, zombie walking, monkey cartoon.

I'm not dismisisng it or anything, but I'm just not seeing the same things you are.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zenic
 



Yes, I think your's is a good assessment. Too, I wonder why the image does not carry up to the yellow painting? That's odd.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Single person moving trought the frame in a long exposure. Where's the original with exif data?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
bit more news on it ....


www.enjoynorwich.com...

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Sakrateri]

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Sakrateri]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
And the Photographers site....



www.andrewkittphotography.co.uk...



tried to add this to last post but couldn't ?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   


Andrew refuses to make any solid claim as to the nature of the form in the photograph, but is categorically firm on the fact that it has not be altered digitally or tampered with in any way...


I think it's odd that he refuses to make a solid claim about the nature of this shot, yet he also denies that it is a hoax.

Or should I say he said "It's not intended as a hoax"

Any photographer trying to back up the claim that the figure was not in the shot should provide the ISO setting (or film used if it was not digital) their F Stop and shutter speed.

If those three things were provided it would be much easier to determine if a double exposure was used, or if they faked it with a slow shutter. Of course if this was digital it would be a lot harder to do a double exposure, as most high end digital cameras offer this function in the same way film can do double exposure.

So if it's faked the way I'm thinking it is, then it would have to be shot on film. Any digital slow shutter photography I've done has never been able to provide these kinds of results, usually figures or moving objects in the frame are more well defined, or at least consume more light.


The only thing that really puzzles me is the fact that the figure isn't well defined... but what could have been done is the photographer in question took two shots, one at a slower speed and then in photoshop super imposed a faded version of the shot with the blurred figure.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
This is a low light photo, and thusly shot on long exposure, someone must have run through frame. Not a ghost at all...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Clever guy, no pictures show exif data. His website gets probably more hits than ever. Free advertising for an average photographer.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Clever guy, no pictures show exif data. His website gets probably more hits than ever. Free advertising for an average photographer.


Where do you see mention of his Web Site? I only see a way to contact the writer of the article via email.


Edit: Nevermind you were talking about the reply to the thread, I thought you were referring that it was in the article.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by gravitybender]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
 


Nonetheless gravity, it's a great photo and thanks for putting it up.
You know how we like to chew on this kind of thing!

Keep us updated if you find out more!




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join