It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Picture of Jim Morrison's ghost is Real experts say

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:53 PM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by l0rds0fcha0s

I see no window at all on that door. And the photo has been gone over by experts I am sure they examined to see if it was a reflection which it says in the article it is not a reflection I am pretty sure

I see no where where 'experts' have examined it. Only 'researchers' who can be nuttier than my Aunt Anna, and she's mental.

Send it to a ATS photo expert to look into it.

Also, everyone elses grave shots are clear (including mine if I could find it taken in 91) this one is nicely smokey, and taken only in 97.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by zazzafrazz]

I wouldn't send anything to ATS "experts" none of them are experts. They are pure skeptics and I have seen many times on here where they try to say something is fake with absolutely no proof of it being fake at all..

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:22 AM
Apologies - that's not Morrison...but Jackson.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:47 AM

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link do I know? Because Jim is working out west on a ranch! Pretty cool photo though it if was an odd chance reflection.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by l0rds0fcha0s

Was it a digital image? If it was taken in 1997, then it's quite possible it was not. And double exposure was easy to obtain, both inadvertently and on purpose (I know, I've done both!

EDIT: I went to the website of the original story and read it, and then some of the comments; and this one cracked me up so much that I just have to write it here, hoping somebody can explain its logic to me:

"Being 53 years old I can say they (= ghosts) are definitely real."


[edit on 13-10-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:04 AM
I wonder if Chuck Norris was aware that he wasn't the only star in the pic?

JM's Ghost was lucky that chuck didn't roundhouse his ass..

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:14 AM
The researchers have only said that the photo was not manipulated. This does NOT mean the ghostly image was in FACT a real ghost.

It could have been a trick of light, or -- as ATS member "Etheral Gargoyle" noted above -- the fact that the picture is from 1997 means there is a good chance it is NOT digital, and therefore could have easily been a film double-exposure.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:19 AM
Yes,im of the opinion that it is simply light and shadows creating what we see aswell.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:26 AM
1. there's a book being pushed here. if you want to learn more about the photo, buy the book. that's always a bit dodgy for me.

2. the guy wants to unload the photo:

He no longer wants the picture and is trying to find a private and reputable organisation to donate the photo and negative to.

Perhaps he should donate the photo to ATS so we can have it analyzed by our own professionals.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:29 AM
This is just too good to be true...the way the person ini the photo is off center so "Jim" can be in the pic...the pose the ghost is in makes me think this is a photo shop of some concert footage...hell the way this ghost is standing makes me think that maybe its Michael Jackson getting ready to grab his crotch lol.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Rockstrongo37]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:02 AM
I think its fake, not really sure ......if it is, its a good one.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:03 AM
i would love to find this to be true. it does appear to be a spirit, however, how can anyone be certain exactly who it is since it is in a cemetery.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Way Too many buzz kills on ATS!

Are you an idiot?

We aren't trying to catch a buzz. We are trying to find proof.

Nobody wants your kind on this site, get off now.

This website is about finding undeniable TRUTH.

Any post the least bit of a hoax are DELETED.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by FouL-LiveR]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

You know, as unbelievable as this sounds (to me it does), I think there are many people around who are not even familiar with double exposure in photography anymore.

Are people actually getting easier to con because they are unfamiliar with the "old" technology? I looks like it.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:09 AM
Interesting photo, but I'm also leaning toward the double exposure theory. Consider this: If he was at the gravesite of Jim Morrison, there is probably a really good chance that the picture taken before or after this one was of a poster or other memorabilia of Jim Morrison. The somewhat poor quality of the photograph would also support a double exposure to an extent.

Perhaps one of the awesome "net trollers" here on ATS could search and locate the picture that this "ghostly image" could have come from, if it is indeed a double exposure or a super-imposed image.

Good find, though, and an interesting photo.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:21 AM
I thought Morrison died in the bathtub in France, why would he be wearing anything? And if you wear what you die in, it'd suck to get killed wearing something goofy around Halloween.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:29 AM
You neverknow I guess - He was such a prankster and considering the amount of '___' he took he may have taken a detour for 30 years before coming to the realization that he has passed on.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:31 AM
I lol when the so called experts are random douchebags that nobody has heard of, you would be lucky if you read their names in the article, but there's not even that.

So I'm gonna call BS on this one.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by Ronthedogman

That must be some really good Acid to ride on for 30 years.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by Ethereal Gargoyle

Yes -- even if it is a double-exposure "fake", that doesn't mean that the original photographer did it intentionally. The double-exposure may have been inadvertent.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in