posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by Dr VanNostrin
Good catch. I completely missed it, but it seems to me to be highly suspicious. The shot centers both the standing man and the image in the
background. This wouldn't have happened, unless the photographer was trying to get both elements into the photo - which would suggest that he knew
about the "ghost" and wanted to include it.
It doesn't seem that this "ghost" is actually at the grave itself, but rather farther off in the background somewhere. Morrison's headstone is in
front of the man standing there, with flowers on it. I don't know what's back there, but it looks like a mausoleum or something. So right away
I'm wondering, why is that image supposed to be of Morrison, and not some other ghost? You can't make out a face. It's just some sort of apparent
male figure wearing black and white.
As for the "ghost" itself, it is childishly easy to create an ethereal-looking image of a person, with the background showing through. There is no
way for any "expert" to assert that this image is "real". The best anyone could do is possibly say whether it had been Photoshopped. I'm not
even convinced that an expert can always identify a well-done Photoshop, but this didn't require Photoshop. Just a guy posing as a ghost in the
photo, exposed for less time than the rest of the scene. If this was a film photo (as opposed to digital), there are all sorts of darkroom tricks
that could also have been used.
But really, the most suspicious point is the framing of the shot, which appears to deliberately and knowingly include the "ghost". That is
inconsistent with the story.